Interim Evaluation of the Eurostars-2 Joint Programme · June 2017.2 This report accordingly...
Transcript of Interim Evaluation of the Eurostars-2 Joint Programme · June 2017.2 This report accordingly...
Written by
Expert Group Chair: Marcel Shaton Expert Group Members: Axel Lehmann, Eva Pando, Isella Vicini Expert Group Rapporteur: Michele Cincera June – 2017
Interim Evaluation of the
Eurostars-2 Joint
Programme
Interim Evaluation of the Eurostars-2 Joint Programme
European Commission
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation
Directorate B — Open Innovation and Open Science
Unit B.3 — SMEs, Financial Instruments and State Aid
Contact Maria KAYAMANIDOU, Laura PIANI
E-mail [email protected]
European Commission
B-1049 Brussels
Manuscript completed in June 2017.
Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be
made of the following information.
The views expressed in this publication are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the
European Commission.
More information on the European Union is available on the internet (http://europa.eu).
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017
PDF ISBN 978-92-79-72152-6 doi: 10.2777/357102 KI-02-17-984-EN-N
© European Union, 2017.
Reuse is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. The reuse policy of European Commission documents is regulated by
Decision 2011/833/EU (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39).
For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not under the EU copyright, permission must be sought directly
from the copyright holders.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Interim Evaluation of the
Eurostars-2 Joint
Programme
Written by
Expert Group Chair: Marcel Shaton
Expert Group Members: Axel Lehmann, Eva Pando, Isella Vicini
Expert Group Rapporteur: Michele Cincera
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2017 Eurostars-2 Joint Programme
2
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................... 3
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 6
1.1 Purpose of the evaluation ..................................................................................... 6
1.2 Scope of the evaluation ........................................................................................ 7
2. CONTEXT .................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Description of the initiative and its objectives .......................................................... 7
2.2 Objectives of the Eurostars-2 Joint Programme. ...................................................... 9
2.3 Baseline ............................................................................................................. 9
3. EVALUATION QUESTIONS ............................................................................ 11
3.1 Relevance and appropriateness ........................................................................... 11
3.2 Efficiency and use of resources ........................................................................... 11
3.3 Effectiveness .................................................................................................... 12
3.4 Coherence ........................................................................................................ 13
3.5 European Added Value ....................................................................................... 13
4. METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................... 13
5. IMPLEMENTATION STATE OF PLAY ................................................................ 15
5.1 Governance and Implementation ......................................................................... 15
5.2 Project Portfolio ................................................................................................. 17
6. RESPONSES TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS............................................... 30
6.1 Relevance and appropriateness ........................................................................... 30
6.2 Efficiency and use of resources ........................................................................... 32
6.3 Effectiveness .................................................................................................... 35
6.4 Coherence ........................................................................................................ 38
6.5 European Added Value ....................................................................................... 41
7. ANALYSIS OF IMPACT OF COMPLETED EUROSTARS-1 PROJECTS ...................... 43
8. POST 2020: FUTURE OPTIONS AND MODELS ................................................. 44
9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... 47
9.1 Key Issues ........................................................................................................ 47
9.2 Programme implementation ................................................................................ 48
9.3 Governance ...................................................................................................... 48
ANNEX 1: EUROSTARS-2 JOINT PROGRAMME LEGAL BASIS ................................. 50
ANNEX 2: MANDATE OF THE INTERIM EVALUATION EXPERT GROUP ..................... 64
ANNEX 3: ANALYSIS OF IMPACT OF COMPLETED EUROSTARS-1 PROJECTS ........... 68
ANNEX 4: THE INTERIM EVALUATION EXPERT GROUP ......................................... 74
ANNEX 5: MID-TERM EVALUATION EUROSTARS-2 – TASKFORCE REPORT ............. 76
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Scope of the Evaluation
The Decision of the European Parliament and the Council on the Union’s participation in
the Article 185 initiative Eurostars-2 Joint Programme ("Eurostars-2") under Horizon
2020 foresaw that the European Commission shall carry out an interim evaluation by 30
June 2017.1 This report accordingly presents the findings of the Interim Evaluation of
"Eurostars-2" prepared by an Expert Panel appointed by the European Commission, DG
Research & Innovation and chaired by Mr Marcel Shaton.
The task of the Expert Group is to prepare a report and make recommendations based on
available relevant evidence, covering all aspects of the interim evaluation as set out in
the legal basis and respecting the better regulation Guidelines of the Commission.
Main Findings of the Interim Evaluation
The major benefits of Eurostars rest in several niche features of the programme:
Bottom up approach;
Strengthening transnational cooperation among R&D performing SMEs;
Division of work between central structure (ESE) and decentralised structures (NFBs);
Introduction of new products, processes and services within two years of projects'
completion;
Targeting of SMEs without any previous international experience in transnational
industrial R&D collaborations.
On the other side, some weaknesses could also be identified:
High heterogeneity of times to contract;
Insufficient accuracy and up-to-date information in the ESE database;
Uncertainty to get funding for selected projects when the contribution of Participating
States has been exhausted by other projects;
Lack of synchronization of procedures for implementing the programme;
Not enough Participating States at the EU level are active in the Eurostars-2 joint-
programme.
Recommendations for the Remainder of the Eurostars Programme
Based on overall analysis, the expert group came up with the following
recommendations:
Key Issues
In order to strengthen the EU added value, at least two R&D performing SMEs from
two different Participating States should be mandatory in the proposed project
consortium with a fair distribution of activities and a good balanced budget (20%
minimum for each R&D performing SME, i.e. 70% minimum for both). This is
important to respect the main feature of Eurostars-2 Joint Programme to go to the
transnational market with innovative products within two years after projects’
completion. (short term)
The core objective of Eurostars-2 is to introduce into the market two years after the
project completion the new products, services or processes: this should be organised
1 Decision No 553/2014/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the participation of the Union in a Research and Development jointly undertaken by several Member States aimed at supporting Research and Development Performing Small and Medium-sized enterprises.
4
and effectively implemented at programme level as well as at project level. The two
years requirement should be a clear criterion to take into consideration in the
evaluation process. Follow-up and market readiness measures should be monitored by
the Participating States which have a much better knowledge of their beneficiaries and
their market potential. (short term)
R&D performing SMEs as eligibility criteria should be assessed at national level as it is
done for the SME self-declaration. Today, this action is pursed by ESE. (short term)
The uniqueness of the Eurostars programme in the European panoply of market
creating innovation tools to support SMEs should be preserved and re-strengthened.
(short term)
Programme implementation
The EC should consider in the short term granting the EU top-up to those Eurostars
projects for which grant agreements have not been signed within one year of the cut-
off period. (short term)
Shorter time to contract will permit to avoid jeopardizing the innovation potential of
projects. Time to contract should be calculated at the project level when the
consortium agreement is signed and not at the participant level when they sign their
grant agreement with their respective NFB. (short term)
The gathering of information from the centralized ESE database which should be
constantly updated would constitute an advantage to monitor the overall
implementation of the joint programme. (short term)
The data collection, selection and monitoring mechanisms in the ESE Database should
be improved. (short term)
Participating States should first receive MIRs and assess them on efficiency,
effectiveness and pragmatism to-go-to-the-market. Their assessment per project
should be addressed to the ESE as an element for the payment of the EC top-up. It
will allow creating an instrument for assessment of the bottlenecks for
commercialisation to build new go-to-the-market and financial tool boxes. (long term)
Structure and content of MIR reports should be improved in order to assess projects’
results on efficiency, effectiveness and pragmatism with regards to-go-to-the-market.
(short term)
Put in place a follow-up of the results of funded projects (i.e. FiRs) and their
introduction into the market within two years after projects’ completion (MIRs) to
better inform Participating States and the European Commission. (short term)
The management of the programme should foresee the total annual EU funding as
requested in the Annual Work Plan (AWP). Losses of EU annual funding should be
avoided. The increase of the EU top-up rate to the NFBs in order to use the left-over
EU contribution is a counter-productive option because this will definitively decrease
the total budget (and impact) of the joint programme. (long term)
R&D performing SMEs as eligibility criteria should be assessed at national level as it is
done for the SME self-declaration. Today, this action is pursued by ESE. (short term)
5
Governance
The Eurostars budget is around 50% of the total administrative budget of ESE
including EUREKA activities. This is not perceived in the institutional governance of
EUREKA. A distinctive (from EUREKA) Eurostars governance agenda should be set up.
(short term)
An in depth and representative survey of the barriers encountered by under-
represented Participating States should be carried out following two vectors:
exogenous barriers and endogenous barriers. A particular emphasis will be put on the
role of NPCs of under-represented Participating States. (short term)
The call for convergence of Art.185 creates difficulties and tensions with Participating
States that are reluctant to further harmonize the national rules and procedures and
funding rates for Eurostars-2. Article 185 TFEU may be not the most appropriate
instrument in absence of further convergence potentialities. (long term).
The current evaluation process is too fragmented and the evaluation criteria are too
numerous and narrow to have a realistic overview of the project's quality. More
feedbacks should be given to the evaluators about the outcomes of the submitted
projects they examined. (short term)
Future Perspectives: Options and Models post-2020
4 scenarios of the future Eurostars can be envisioned along the spectrum from sole
operation of the participating states to the sole operation of the European Commission
through the Framework Programme.
Eureka states participating operate the program on their own trough ESE without any
involvement of the EU Commission.
Partnership associating the Eureka Participating States and the EU Commission
through an adjusted article 185 or another tool such as coordination with EIC
maintaining the top-up and coverage of the administrative cost incurred by ESE. This
option requires strengthening the uniqueness of Eurostar as specified in our
recommendations.
Eureka Participating States are the only providers of R&D founding. The Commission
covers the administrative costs. This option requires as well strengthening the
uniqueness of Eurostar as specified in our recommendations but can be built invoking
article 185.
Eurostars will be an integral part of the Framework Program (could be EIC) under its
procedures and rules, without any involvement of the Eureka participating states.
6
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of the evaluation
The Decision of the European Parliament and the Council on the Union’s participation in
the Article 185 initiative Eurostars-2 Joint Programme ("Eurostars-2") under Horizon
2020 foresaw that the European Commission shall carry out an interim evaluation by 30
June 2017.2 This report accordingly presents the findings of the Interim Evaluation of
"Eurostars-2" prepared by an Expert Panel appointed by the European Commission, DG
Research & Innovation and chaired by Mr Marcel Shaton.
The task of the Expert Group is to prepare a report and make recommendations based on
available relevant evidence, covering all aspects of the interim evaluation as set out in
the legal basis and respecting the better regulation Guidelines of the Commission.
The main purpose of the Expert Group is to:
Assess the progress towards the objectives of the Art. 185 "Eurostars-2" Joint
Programme and to what extent Eurostars-2 is relevant with respect to the demands of
the involved Participating States and of the beneficiaries;
Assess the efficiency with respect to the specific and operational objectives of the
initiative as laid down in its basic act [Decision No 553/2014/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2014] and the corresponding Impact
Assessment (IA);
Assess the qualitative and quantitative (expected) impacts of Eurostars-2 at
programme and project levels and in particular the efficiency of the entry-into-the
market of results/achievements of ended projects.
Assess the coherence with other EU-level interventions which have similar objectives
to Art. 185 "Eurostars-2" as well as synergies including with other funding
programmes such as the ESIF Regional Funds, collaborative projects were SMEs are
participating in the frame of bilateral S&T&I agreements between the Participating
States;
Assess the coherence of the interaction between the different bodies intervening in
Eurostars-2 governance (EUREKA High Level Group (HLG), Eurostars HLG, Eurostars-2
Advisory Group, EUREKA Secretariat, NPCs, National Funding Bodies, European
Commission) and their role during the execution of the programme;
Assess the effectiveness of the mobilisation of national and European funding for R&D
performing SMEs, the leverage effect from the Union's contribution and the way
Eurostars-2 compare to the 'mainstream' EUREKA with regard to the participation of
SMEs;
Assess the additional value resulting from the EU intervention, compared to what
could be achieved by Member States at national, regional and/or local levels and also,
the added-value of the Eurostars-2 Programme compared to other forms of support to
R&D&I in Horizon 2020 Framework programme (in particular SME-Instrument,
collaborative projects in the Thematic priorities of LEITs and Societal Challenges, Joint
Technology Initiatives).
The Eurostars-2 Programme evaluation is one of a series of interim evaluations being
undertaken of existing Art. 185 initiatives under Horizon 2020 (H2020). It will feed into a
wider ‘meta-analysis’ of Art. 185 initiatives in order to take stock of the experiences in
their preparation and implementation, identify critical issues that need to be addressed
and propose if necessary adjustments, and assess how the Art. 185 instrument can
efficiently contribute to policy developments.
2 Decision No 553/2014/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the participation of the Union in a Research and Development jointly undertaken by several Member States aimed at supporting Research and Development Performing Small and Medium-sized enterprises.
7
1.2 Scope of the evaluation
The Eurostars-2 Programme runs for seven years, from 2014-2020. This Interim
Evaluation covers its operation over the first three years, 2014-2016. Whilst the focus is
primarily on the Eurostars-2 Programme, it is also necessary to take into account data
and results from the predecessor initiative the Eurostars Joint Programme (referred to for
convenience as ‘Eurostars-1’) which operated from 2008-20133. Particular attention is
paid to issues relating to the transition between the two programmes and the impact of
the Eurostars(-1) in terms of new products, processes, or services introduced into the
market two years after the project completion.
‘Article 185 initiatives’ are joint programmes established by Member States or/and
Associated Countries (‘Participating States’) with the financial participation of the
European Union. Their establishment refers to Art. 185 of the Treaty on the Functioning
of the European Union (TFEU). They are designed to meet particular challenges in the
research area and to complement Horizon 2020, to leverage national with EU funding,
and to create economies of scales and synergies between national and EU research
programmes and investments. This Interim Evaluation addresses primarily the EU’s
participation and benefits from the Eurostars-2 rather than the overall performance of
the programme. Aspects such as European added value are critical.
The evaluation is timely as it comes when the European Commission is proposing the
preparatory phase of the European Innovation Council (EIC) which will support
innovators developing market breakthrough innovation. as well as starting to discuss the
future of the Eurostars-2 Programme beyond Horizon 2020. As such, the report will feed
into the wider debate on how to accelerate the emergence and maximise the scale-up of
European innovative SMEs.
2. CONTEXT
2.1 Description of the initiative and its objectives
2.1.1.R&D SMEs transnational research which contributes to competitiveness, growth and
job creation in Europe.
Eurostars-2 is jointly undertaken by 34 Eurostars-2 Participating States and Partner
countries4 and the European Union on the basis of Article 185 of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (ex-Art. 169 TEC). The participation of the EU
was formally acted through the Decision No 553/2014/EU of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 15 May 2014 ("Eurostars-2 Decision")5. The decision entered into
force on 27 June 2014.
The European Union supports financially the Eurostars-2 Programme, with maximum
€ 287 million for the period 2014-2020, coming from the Horizon 2020 budget allocated
to "Innovation in SMEs" (Industrial Leadership pillar). The European Union contribution is
equivalent to one third of the effective contribution of the Participating States (for both
operational and administrative expenditure) and may go up to a maximum of half of the
contributions of the Participating States. The EU contribution applies to the sole
3 Decision No. 743/2008/European Commission of the European Parliament and the Council of 9 July 2008 (OJ L 201, 30.07.2008, p.58) The Decision can be found on:
http://eurlex.europa.eu/LExUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:201:0058:0067:EN:PDF 4 The following 34 Participating states and Partner Countries are currently participating to Eurostars-2: Participating States: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Ireland, Israel, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, United Kingdom. Partner Countries: South Korea, Switzerland. 5 Decision No 553/2014/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2014: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014D0553&from=EN
8
Participating States which are either Member States or Associated Countries to H2020;
Partner countries are not eligible for EU contribution.
Eurostars-2 is organised on the basis of continuously open call for proposals, with at least
2 cut-off dates per year for the award of financial support. Financial support should
mainly take the form of grants to selected projects. The programme is managed by the
EUREKA Secretariat AISBL6 ("ESE") in Brussels.
Eurostars-2 is aiming to provide financial support to transnational market-oriented
research projects initiated and driven by R&D performing SMEs7. A project should last no
longer than three years and, within two years of completion, the product of research
should be ready for market introduction. Research and development performing SMEs
shall take the lead and should be able to exploit commercially the project results, thus
improving their competitive position. Research organisations, universities, other SMEs,
large companies and other actors of the innovation chain can also participate in
Eurostars-2 projects.
Eurostars-2 activities should be in line with the objectives and the bottom-up principle of
Horizon 2020: projects shall be innovative with no thematic restriction but limited to
civilian purposes.
For the purpose of being eligible as a Eurostars-2 project, the consortium is a partnership
composed of at least two entities that are independent of one another and established in
two different Eurostars-2 Participating States or Eurostars-2 Partner Countries. In order
to be considered as eligible for receiving EU financial contribution, the project is required
to meet the eligibility criteria described above and to be a partnership composed of at
least two entities that are independent of one another and established in two different
Eurostars-2 Participating States or Eurostars-2 Partner countries, out of which at least
one Member State or Horizon 2020 Associated country.
Eurostars-2 aims at combining integration (managerial, scientific and financial) with a
decentralised access and national funding rules. The partners in the selected Eurostars-2
projects are administratively handled by their respective national administrations. It is
assumed that the bottom-up nature of the scheme and national funding procedures fit
the specific needs of R&D performing SMEs.
The initiative is the continuation of the Eurostars Joint Programme (2008-2013) where
the European Union agreed to participate in the programme by making a financial
contribution to the equivalent of a maximum of one third of the effective contributions of
the participating Member States and the other participating countries, within a ceiling of EUR 100 million for the whole period8.
6 EUREKA is an intergovernmental network launched in 1985, to support market-oriented R&D and innovation projects by industry, research centres and universities across all technological sectors. It is composed of 41 members, including the European Union represented by the Commission. The EUREKA Secretariat, based in Brussels, acts as the central support unit for the network. 7 Within the frame of the Eurostars-2 Decision (Art.2), R&D performing SME means an SME which meets at least one of the following conditions: (i) SMEs with 100 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) employees or fewer must have at least 5.0 FTEs dedicated to R&D activities, or dedicate at least 10.00% of their FTE to R&D activities, or
dedicate at least 10.00% of their turnover to R&D activities and (ii) SMEs with a headcount of more than 100 FTE employees must have at least 10.0 FTEs dedicated to R&D activities or dedicate at least 10.00% of their FTE to R&D activities or dedicate at least 10.00% of their turnover to R&D activities. The current definition of SMEs is set out in the Recommendation 2003/361/EC (OJ L124, 20.05.2003, p.36). 8 Decision No 743/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 on the Community’s participation in a research and development programme undertaken by several Member States aimed at supporting research and development performing small and medium-sized enterprises. (OJ L 201, 30.07.2008, p.58-67): http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:201:0058:0067:EN:PDF
9
2.2 Objectives of the Eurostars-2 Joint Programme.
Eurostars-2 aims to support such R&D performing SMEs by:
encouraging them to create new economic activities based on R&D results and bring
new products, processes and services to the market faster than would otherwise be
possible;
creating an easily accessible and sustainable European R&D support mechanism for
them;
promoting their technological and business development and internationalisation.
Eurostars projects are defined by the following specificities:
SME-oriented as at least one partner should be an R&D-performing SME;
market-oriented as they must have a maximum duration of three years and within
two years of project completion the product of the research should be ready for launch
into the market.
collaborative and international as in any project there should be at least two
partners (autonomous legal entities) from two different participating states;
bottom-up as the technological areas to be addressed within the projects are
selected by the applicants, consequently the national and European funds being
directed at certain innovation areas by the beneficiaries’ research potential and
interest;
Eurostars shall align and synchronise relevant national research and innovation
programmes, and complement existing national and European Union programmes aimed
at supporting R&D performing SMEs in their innovation process.
2.3 Baseline
The Eurostars-2 largely continues and builds on structures and activities begun under the
previous Eurostars Joint Programme (2008-2013). As such, the baseline for this
evaluation is essentially the situation pertaining at the end of Eurostars-1 as set out in
the Final Evaluation report for Eurostars-1 published in November 20149 and the Ex Ante
Impact Assessment for Eurostars-2 undertaken by the European Commission.10
In the mid-term evaluation of Eurostars-1 as well as the final evaluation of Eurostars-1
impacts could not have been assessed due to any availability of ended projects. Indeed,
the ultimate objective of the joint programme is to allow R&D performing SMEs to bring
their results into the market in the period of 2 years after the end of the project. The
ongoing mid-term evaluation of Eurostars-2 will be in the position for the first time to
take stock of the results arising from the "Analysis of impact of completed Eurostars-1
projects11"
Overall, the Final Evaluation concluded that the Eurostars-1 fully reached its target group
of R&D performing SMEs and an important feature of Eurostars-1 was its bottom-up
approach which permitted to select all type of technologies in which those SMEs
innovate. The Programme was justified and had made continuous progress towards its
objectives. It was operating as a coherent framework that delivered clear added value for
Europe and the associated research, development and innovation activity was reaching
critical mass. Activities aimed at improving conditions for industrial exploitation had
expanded significantly. The Programme was well managed, the governance system
9 Final Evaluation of the Eurostars Joint Programme, Report of Expert Group chaired by Marja Makarow, European Commission, November 2014. 10 Ex-ante Impact assessment accompanying the document Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the participation of the Union in a Research and Development Programme jointly undertaken by several Member States aimed at supporting research performing small and medium-sized enterprises SWD(2013) 242 final. 11 "Analysis of impact of completed Eurostars-1 projects", study of the European Commission under publication.
10
functioned properly and the interaction between the national and central administrative
bodies was effective.
The Final Evaluation Expert Group made a series of recommendations in relation to the
Programme Strategy in order to better address the strategic challenges. In summary,
these were that:
Concerning the target group and scope of the programme, all R&D-performing SMEs
need to be targeted, whether or not they have been involved in international
collaborations before. The ESE should support successful Eurostars projects by
providing links to the EUREKA network and to public and private financing instruments
supporting follow-up development and commercialisation.
Regarding governance, the High-Level Group’s decisions should be implemented, and
this implementation should be monitored. National parallel application and evaluation
needs to be abolished, and the transparency and feedback mechanisms of the
evaluation improved.
Concerning management and operations, time-spans from submission deadline to
evaluation outcomes, signed grant and consortium agreements, and to activation of
funding, must be synchronized and shortened to binding deadlines. The Eurostars
database should be improved, based on re-designed application and reporting forms,
in order to serve the purpose of assessing the impact of the programme on
employment as well as R&D and innovation activities of the SMEs, and for information
exchange with national project coordinators.
Regarding funding, a commonly agreed baseline of harmonized funding rules needs to
be agreed, providing the same type of partners with the same maximum rate of
funding in each country
In addition, a series of specific recommendations were made in relation to the
Programme’s operational excellence. These recommendations, and the extent to which
progress has been made, are discussed in Annex 1.
The situation regarding national participation has changed significantly since Eurostars-1
(for reasons that are discussed in more detail below). For this Interim Evaluation,
therefore, the Expert Group has given special consideration to:
1) The situation regarding the alignment, harmonization and synchronization of national
funding mechanisms;
2) The uniqueness of the programme and its position in the European Innovation
landscape.
3) The continuing added value of the Eurostars-2 Joint Programme, not only from a
national, but also from a European perspective; and
4) The boundary conditions for improving national participation (commitments) in the
future.
Eurostars-2 is no longer a ‘green field’. Both markets and policy initiatives have
developed considerably over the three years since the current Programme was initiated,
and even more so over the eight years since the predecessor Eurostars-1 was first
launched.
11
3. EVALUATION QUESTIONS
In accordance with the Expert Group's Terms of Reference, the Evaluation focused on
five key aspects: relevance and appropriateness, efficiency and use of resources,
effectiveness, coherence and EU added value. The evaluation brief is summarised below
and reproduced in Annex 2.
3.1 Relevance and appropriateness
To what extent is the Eurostars-2 Joint Programme relevant with respect to the
demands of the involved Participating States and of the beneficiaries? Do the
objectives still correspond to the needs of the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme?
To what extent is Eurostars-2 appropriate to support the realization of the EU policy
objectives especially ERA, Innovation Union, the three "O", thematic sector policies
including 'Innovation in SMEs'?
3.2 Efficiency and use of resources
3.2.1 Efficiency with respect to the specific and operational objectives of the initiative as
laid down in its basic act [Decision No 553/2014/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 14 May 2014] and the corresponding Impact Assessment (IA), including:
3.2.2 Progress made towards achievement of the following specific objectives:
Promotion of transnational market-oriented research activities for R&D performing
SMEs in any field, leading to the introduction of new or improved products, processes
or services in the market by the participating SMEs;
Contribution to the completion of the ERA and increasing the accessibility, efficiency
and efficacy of public funding for R&D performing SMEs in Europe by aligning,
harmonising and synchronising the national funding mechanisms.
3.2.3 Progress made towards achievement of the following operational objectives taking
into consideration the indicators and targets as mentioned in Chapter 8 of the IA:
Three years after the end of each project, for each 1 M€ of public funding (from EU
and participating Eurostars countries), on average, the turnover of the participants
should increase by at least 10M€, at least 25 new jobs should be created and three
new or improved products, processes or services should be on the market;
Scientific integration of national programmes: Ensure excellence and impact of the
projects selected through international (EUREKA initiative) competition and the
application of a single evaluation and selection process;
Management integration of national programmes: Further improve operational
excellence and accountability for the programme by reducing the time to contract
while maintaining an optimal frequency of calls per year;
Financial integration of national programmes: Harmonisation of national funding rules
and application of a binding ranking list;
Facilitate the participation of R&D performing SMEs without previous experience in
transnational R&D activities.
12
3.2.4 Efficiency with respect to the implementation structures of Eurostars-2, including
How efficient is the programme implementation by ESE in collaboration with the
National Funding Bodies. What were its main limitations in relation to National Funding
Bodies (NFBs) during the execution of the Programme? What could be the lessons
learnt for the future?
What resources are needed at the different levels (Commission services, Participating
States and their NFBs) for the preparation and implementation of the initiative? Are
these justified by the scale and scope of the initiative?
Efficiency with respect to Eurostars-2 as an instrument to foster transnational R&D
cooperation within Europe, including:
To what extent has Eurostars-2 been cost-effective? Were the costs involved justified,
given the changes/effects which have been achieved? Is the operational performance
of EUREKA/ESE and its role proportionate to its allocation of budget?
Is the initiative implemented in an efficient way? Have the management aspects been
properly addressed? Are effective monitoring and supervision arrangements in place to
ensure adequate monitoring of the initiative?
Has the initiative been implemented in accordance with the provisions of the adopted
work plans, budgets and the delegation agreement? Are the reporting requirements,
including audit provisions efficient?
What kind of approaches could be considered to generate further efficiency gains?
3.3 Effectiveness
What have been the (qualitative and quantitative) (expected) impacts of Eurostars-2 - At
programme and project levels, in particular:
At Programme level:
To what extent is Eurostars-2 able to mobilize national and European funding for R&D
performing SMEs? How strong is the leverage effect from the Union contribution? Is
the programme sufficiently accessible, in particular for the R&D performing SMEs? Are
there identified "barriers to entry"?
How does Eurostars-2 compare to the 'mainstream' EUREKA with regard to the
participation of SMEs, synchronisation of funding, type of projects etc.
What's the efficiency of the mechanisms and tools ensuring the entry-into-the-market
of results/achievements of Eurostars-2 ended projects?
To what extent are the (expected) impacts of Eurostars-2 in line with its objectives?
At Project Level:
How effectively are the projects managed by the participants?
What are the main economic and social impacts for R&D performing SMEs participating
in Eurostars-2? What is the impact in terms of new products/processes/services or
significant improvement of existing ones? What is the impact in terms of competitive
position, company profile, employment, qualification of staff, R&D investments and
attitude towards transnational collaboration?
13
What is the added value for an R&D-performing SME to participate in Eurostars-2 (i.e.
what is the return on investment)? What is the motivation of other participant types to
participate? Do the benefits from participating outweigh the costs?
What improvements/modifications are proposed to enhance the participation of SMEs
to the programme and maximise the benefits they can get from their participation?
How are the SMEs using the IPR resulting from the project?
Is the current project format (at least one R&D performing SME and another partner
from a different country) appropriate with regard to Eurostars-2 objectives?
Does Eurostars-2 play an adequate role in promoting excellence in scientific and
technological research, development and demonstration in the considered field and
impact of the projects selected?
Does Eurostars-2 play an adequate role in supporting innovation in the considered
field?
Does Eurostars-2 play an adequate role in positioning Europe on the global map of
science and technology in research in the concerned field?
3.4 Coherence
External coherence: To what extent is Eurostars-2 coherent with other EU-level
interventions which have similar objectives? What are the relations (i)
complementarity, (ii) synergies including with other funding programmes such as the
ESIF Regional Funds, collaborative projects were SMEs are participating in the frame
of bilateral S&T&I agreements between the Participating States (iii) and potential
overlaps (iv)?
Is the performance of Eurostars-2 in line with the spirit of Article 185 TFEU? Are the
procedures implemented at national level, coherent and aligned to ensure the best
performance of the Programme?
Internal coherence: How was the interaction between the different bodies intervening
in Eurostars-2 governance (EUREKA High Level Group (HLG), Eurostars HLG,
Eurostars-2 Advisory Group, EUREKA Secretariat, NPCs, National Funding Bodies,
European Commission)? Did their role evolve during the execution of the programme?
Did the role of the Commission change?
3.5 European Added Value
What is the additional value resulting from the EU intervention(s), compared to what
could be achieved by Member States at national, regional and/or local levels?
What is the added-value of the Eurostars-2 Programme compared to other forms of
support to R&D&I in Horizon 2020 Framework programme (in particular SME-
Instrument, collaborative projects in the Thematic priorities of LEITs and Societal
Challenges, joint technology initiative, ERA-net)?
4. METHODOLOGY
The Interim Evaluation Expert Group comprised four independent experts chosen for
their experience in industrial research and technological development and a rapporteur.
The CVs of Panel Members are presented in Annex 4.
The evaluation process foresees that the methodologies used to address the questions
mentioned above must be both qualitative and quantitative:
14
For the qualitative part, the methodologies included desk review of
documents/reports, extensive in-depth interviews as well as case-studies. The
interviews included staff of the EUREKA Secretariat, members of the Eurostars-2 High
Level Group, members of the Eurostars-2 Advisory group, staff members of National
Funding Bodies involved in Eurostars-2, Commission services, evaluators, participants
in the Eurostars-2 Programme (in particular R&D performing SMEs) (interviews have
been carried out via the phone, video conferencing or face to face). The bottom line of
the interviews and consultations are part of the inputs used for the elaborations of the
assessment.
Participation to the HLG meeting and to the EC-EUREKA Working group meeting in
Bilbao (October 2016), to the Eurostars Advisory Group meeting (November 2016) to
the HLG meeting in Brussels (January 2017) and to the HLG meeting in Seville (March
2017)
Five plenary meetings in Brussels to discuss findings, results from interviews and the
draft report
Two meetings with the ESE staff to discuss procedures and data
One meeting with the Eurostars-2 mid-term evaluation Taskforce.
Results arising from the internet-based public consultation that lasted 12 weeks
(January- April 2017).
For the quantitative part, the Group carried out its activities through an independent,
robust process built partly on existing evidence base as well as collecting new data
including both quantitative and qualitative evidence. The Expert Group has been given
access to the EUREKA/ESE database of both Eurostars-1 and Eurostars-2 projects.
The results of this Interim Evaluation are supplemented by:
The report on "Analysis of impact of completed Eurostars-1 projects" performed from
September 2016 until April 2017 provides important inputs relevant for this
assessment assignment. The main results and recommendations of this report are
available in Annex 3.
The results of the analysis based on the internet based public consultation from
January 2017 to April 2017 and launched by the European Commission in 2017 is
available in Annex 8.
The evaluation framework comprised four task assignments. The Experts analysed the
content of the interviews during the plenary meetings together with the background
documents and other information in order to formulate this report.
Task 1 – Quantitative analysis of the ESE Eurostars-2 database
Task 2 – Assessment through 5 evaluation main criteria
Task 3 – Analysis of commercial results of Eurostars-1 projects
Task 4 – Recommendations
15
5. IMPLEMENTATION STATE OF PLAY
5.1 Governance and Implementation
Eurostars-2 Joint Programme is implemented through a Dedicated Implementation
Structure (DIS), the Eureka Secretariat (ESE), which is responsible for the execution
of the programme, in particular for the organisation of the calls for proposals, the co-
ordination of the eligibility, peer-review evaluation and selection of projects, the
monitoring of projects and the allocation of the EU contribution.
The governance system of the programme involves three main bodies:
The ‘Eurostars-2 High Level Group’ (EUREKA/Eurostars-2 HLG) is composed of
the European Commission and the EUREKA High Level Representatives of the
Eurostars-2 participating countries, which have signed a Eurostars-2 Bilateral
Agreement with the EUREKA Secretariat. Other EUREKA member countries not
participating in the Eurostars-2 Programme retain the option to send representatives
to Eurostars-2 HLG meetings as observers. The Eurostars-2 HLG is competent to
supervise the implementation of Eurostars-2.
The ‘Eurostars-2 Advisory Group’ (EAG) is composed of EUREKA National Project
Coordinators (EUREKA/Eurostars-2 NPCs) from the Eurostars-2 participating countries.
The European Commission may participate in the EAG meetings as observer. The EAG
meetings will be chaired by the EUREKA Secretariat.
The EAG shall advise the EUREKA Secretariat as well as the Eurostars HLG on the
execution of the Eurostars-2 Programme and shall provide advice on the
arrangements for its implementation.
National Funding Bodies (NFBs) are the most important stakeholders for the
implementation of Eurostars-2 at national level and to support Eurostars-2 in its
challenging aim of further synchronisation and financial flexibility. NFBs will actively
collaborate to ensure the implementation of national milestones. They should improve
and adapt their national underlying programmes and procedures in such a way that
they are compliant with the Eurostars-2 rules and the specific implementing guidelines
for Eurostars-2. They should also be willing to implement further improvements of the
programme during the execution of Eurostars-2 from 2014 to 2020.
The Eurostars-2 HLG, EAG and the National Funding Bodies can delegate thematic issues
to be discussed by Working Groups.
Such a "multilateral approach" (see Box 1), combines a centralized management and
decentralised entry points: central international and independent peer review evaluation
of the projects (with a common set of evaluation and eligibility rules) run by the ESE in
Brussels, combined with ‘local’ support to project participants in the application and in
the funding phase provided by the NPCs and the NFBs based on a binding ranking list
and national earmarked budgets. The model is designed to optimize the coordination
among the national programmes for R&D performing SMEs while remaining close to final
beneficiaries.
16
Box 1: Governance Structure of the Eurostars-2 Programme What is EUREKA?
EUREKA was established as a platform for market-driven industrial R&D. It is a decentralized network facilitating
the coordination of national funding for innovation, and aims to boost the productivity and competitiveness of
European industries. EUREKA comprises three pillars for funding R&D projects driven by the private sector:
“Individual projects”, “Clusters”, and “Eurostars”. EUREKA “Umbrellas” are thematic networks to facilitate the
generation of future EUREKA projects.
Founded in 1985, EUREKA now unites over 40 countries and also includes the European Union (represented by the
European Commission). As stated in the Hannover Declaration, envisaging already a cutting-edge trajectory, it
was assumed that EUREKA “will enable Europe to master and exploit the technologies that are important for its
future and to build up its capability in crucial areas”12 and foresaw possible supportive measures from the
European Union13.
The EUREKA’s structure is composed of the following main bodies14:
The EUREKA Secretariat (ESE) is an international association based in Brussels acting as the central support
unit for the network. An Executive Board (EB) is responsible for the management of ESE. ESE
acts also as the implementing body of the Eurostars programme.
The EUREKA Chair rotates yearly between EUREKA’s member countries, with each Chairs mandate running from July to June the following year. The Chair implements a three-year rolling programme in cooperation with the previous and future chairs (the 'Troika'). The “Troika” countries form an Executive Group (EG) to which the EU representative is invited. It is responsible for reporting, and implements decisions taken by the HLG as well as for debating key policy issues.
The MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE (MC) is the political body of EUREKA, gathering every two years the ministers from EUREKA countries and an EU Commissioner. The INTER-PARLIAMENTARY CONFERENCE (IPC) raises public awareness of EUREKA’s role. It is organized in alternate years with the MC
The HIGH-LEVEL GROUP (HLG) is the key decision-making body of EUREKA. The ministry responsible for EUREKA in each member country names its High-Level Representative (HLR), who in turn endorses new EUREKA projects, takes decisions on the management of EUREKA, and prepares EUREKA policy discussions for the MC.
The EXECUTIVE GROUP (EG) reports and implements the decisions taken by the HLG. The EG is also responsible for debating key policy issues, deciding on topics delegated by the HLG, and advising successive Chairs.
The NATIONAL PROJECT COORDINATORs (NPCs) run the National EUREKA Offices at operational level and are responsible for project generation, national and international support and follow-up. They are the direct contact with project participants, facilitating the setting-up and running of a project.
The NATIONAL INFORMATION POINTs (NIPs) provide industry and research institutes with an interface with EUREKA and facilitate participation in projects.
Source: www.eurekanetwork.org (information adapted from EUREKA site, sections Structure and History)
12 20th Anniversary Report, Two decades of support for European Innovation”, EUREKA Secretariat, September 2005
13 General Conditions, number 4, from Hannover Declaration, in: http://www.eurekanetwork.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=1b92be16-ec94-4a7e-a8d1-6dd40e4fb318&groupId=10137
14 EUREKA Governing Bodies which are not relevant to this evaluation are not included as it is the case of National Information Points (NIPs).
17
5.2 Project Portfolio
To fulfil its objectives and reflecting its market orientation, over the period 2014-2016
the Programme issued 6 calls for proposals. These have resulted in 579 projects (as of
December 2016) being selected for funding participating states. As can be seen in Table
1, in total the number of participants of approved projects amounts to 1512 participants.
The success rate under Eurostars-2 was more than 30% in total (number of
approvals/number of applications).
Table 1. Number of participants in Eurostars-2 projects by status – (2014 – November 2016)
Approved Below Threshold
Incom plete
Ineli gible
Not Funded
Unqua lified
Veto With drawn
total success rate in %
i ii Iii iv v vi vii viii ix i*100/ix
Participating states (EU 28)
Austria 68 34 6 10 8 91 12 217 31.3
Belgium 36 18 3 11 7 26 5 101 35.6
Bulgaria 8 20 1 3 3 10 3 45 17.8
Croatia 1 8 2 1 11 9.1
Cyprus 5 23 2 4 3 17 2 54 9.3
Czech Republic
24 33 3 2 2 37 1 101 23.8
Denmark 127 65 19 35 18 73 24 337 37.7
Estonia 4 4 0.0
Finland 23 16 2 6 3 25 9 75 30.7
France 126 69 9 28 15 105 1 13 353 35.7
Germany 239 89 41 42 64 187 2 62 664 36.0
Greece 1 1 0.0
Hungary 13 23 3 5 2 21 3 67 19.4
Ireland 3 2 2 6 1 13 23.1
Italy 16 10 5 7 11 2 49 32.7
Latvia 7 12 4 9 32 21.9
Lithuania 21 24 2 3 13 2 63 33.3
Luxembourg 4 4 1 1 4 1 14 28.6
Malta 1 1 1 3 0.0
Netherlands 168 76 15 39 13 118 3 21 432 38.9
Poland 13 18 2 3 8 16 4 60 21.7
Portugal 5 2 3 3 2 7 5 22 22.7
Romania 12 61 8 38 1 119 10.1
Slovakia 5 16 3 4 2 11 2 41 12.2
Slovenia 7 13 3 1 12 1 36 19.4
Spain 100 123 11 28 14 145 12 421 23.8
Sweden 118 69 16 18 6 85 7 312 37.8
United Kingdom
95 69 18 20 18 83 2 5 305 31.1
Participating states (non EU)
Iceland 6 6 1 1 6 20 30.0
Israel 5 5 8 2 4 3 24 20.8
Norway 78 59 5 12 3 38 13 195 40.0
Turkey 15 27 1 9 2 13 1 67 22.4
Partner countries
South Korea 28 29 3 2 30 3 92 30.4
Switzerland 136 57 8 22 16 112 2 12 353 38.5
Total 1512 1089 187 339 216 1355 10 231 4710 32.1
Note1: Switzerland is for the period 2014-2016 a Eurostars-2 Partner Country within the meaning of the Eurostars-2 legal basis. Source: authors’ own calculations based on ESE Eurostars-2 database - version as of December 2016. Note: approved participants also include those that withdrew from projects.
It follows from Table 1 that the number of participants that applied varies a lot across
participating countries. Among the top 5 countries we find Germany (664 participants),
18
The Netherlands (432); Spain (421); France (353) Switzerland (353). Last 5: Malta (3);
Estonia (4); Croatia (11); Ireland (13); Luxembourg (14). Why do some countries have
relatively low participation rate (e.g. Malta, Estonia, Croatia, Ireland, Italy, and
Luxembourg), while the others have a rather relatively high participation rate (e.g.
Germany, The Netherlands, Spain, France, and Switzerland)? One explanation to this
disparity in participation rates rest in the larger size of the first group of countries
compared to the second group. Economic and social variables can be considered to
explain these differences such as GDP per capita, total population, average level of
higher education, R&D expenditures, the number of patents, or other potentially relevant
qualitative aspects (awareness/knowledge of European projects, motivation/willingness
to apply for European projects, existing similar funding schemes at national level). In
order to increase/ incentivise participations, more promotional activities and information
campaigns/sessions could be organized at national level in countries showing relatively
low participation rates. Switzerland is a partner country from January 2014 and
participating country from January 2017.
Another fact emerging form Table 1 is the success rate of applicants which varies a lot
across participating countries. The success rate for all participating states is 31.65%.
Among the top 5 successful applicant countries we have Norway (40%); Switzerland
(38.5%); The Netherlands (38.9%); Sweden (37.8%); Denmark (37.7%). At the other
end, the last 5 successful applicant countries are Greece (0%); Malta (0%); Estonia
(0%); Croatia (9.1%); Cyprus (9.3%). Once again, this disparity can be explained by
economic and social factors specific to each country and also by their previous experience
in Eureka and more or less similar European projects. We can also mention the level of
scientific collaborations in submitting projects that could play a determinant role
depending on each country. The provision of accompanying support measures to help the
application process like in Spain or improving scientific collaborations when submitting
projects could have a positive influence on the success rate.
Before to discuss other salient facts emerging from the Eurostars-2 database, it is worth
mentioning that in several cases discrepancies could be noticed between the official
figures reported in the ESE annual reports and the ones calculated here.15 One reason to
explain this rests in the different time periods considered to make the calculations. For
instance, in this report we use the database as received in December 2016. So, the
number of projects accepted or withdrawn or with another status could be different. This
leads the expert group to propose the following recommendation:
Recommendation: The gathering of information from the centralized ESE database
which should be constantly updated would constitute an advantage to monitor the
overall implementation of the joint programme.
15 For instance, we noticed some differences in the sum of total budgets committed by NFBs and the EC
contribution as reported in ESE annual reports of 2015 (p.85) and 2016 (p.68).
19
Figure 1. Number of approved Eurostars-2 participants by country (2014-November 2016)
Note1: Switzerland is for the period 2014-2016 a Eurostars-2 Partner Country within the meaning of the Eurostars-2 legal basis. Source: Authors’ own calculations based on ESE Eurostars-2 database - version as of December, 2016.
Figure 1 shows that five countries concentrate more than half of all the 1512 participants
of projects that were approved, namely, Germany, The Netherlands, Switzerland, France,
and Sweden. The category “Other” represents 125 participants from 16 countries (Italy,
Turkey, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Latvia, Slovenia, Iceland, Cyprus, Portugal,
Slovakia, Israel, Luxembourg, Ireland and Croatia). Three countries have no participant
(Estonia, Greece and Malta).
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
20
Table 2. Total National Funding Bodies (NFBs) commitment to participant project costs by top-up (in millions €)
Total NFB commitment to participant project costs (M€)
Cut-off 1 2 3 4 5 Total growth rate (in %) between last and first top-up
Participating states (EU 28)
Austria Austria 1.4 3.3 1.5 3.0 9.1 0.8
Belgium Belgium 1.2 1.4 4.1 2.4 9.0 0.7
Bulgaria Bulgaria 0.4 0.8 1.2 0.7
Croatia Croatia
Cyprus Cyprus 0.1 0.1
Czech Republic Czech Republic 0.3 0.5 0.6 1.5 3.0 1.5
Denmark Denmark 3.1 3.1 4.0 6.6 5.9 22.6 0.8
Estonia Estonia
Finland Finland 0.9 1.7 1.2 0.1 3.8 -2.7
France France 3.7 6.8 2.1 2.5 15.2 -0.4
Germany Germany 3.0 8.6 11.0 13.2 35.7 1.5
Greece Greece
Hungary Hungary 0.7 0.2 0.2 1.1 -1.3
Ireland Ireland 0.0 0.0
Italy Italy
Latvia Latvia 0.2 0.2 0.4 -0.1
Lithuania Lithuania 0.8 0.4 1.3 2.5 0.5
Luxembourg Luxembourg 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.0
Malta Malta
Netherlands Netherlands 3.9 8.7 8.3 8.9 29.8 0.8
Poland Poland 0.3 0.7 0.8 1.9 0.9
Portugal Portugal 0.3 0.3
Romania Romania 0.2 0.2 0.9 1.3 1.7
Slovakia Slovakia 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.7
Slovenia Slovenia 0.3 0.3
Spain Spain 5.0 2.5 4.5 4.1 16.1 -0.2
Sweden Sweden 3.6 4.4 5.2 5.1 18.4 0.4
United Kingdom United Kingdom 5.1 3.9 3.8 3.3 16.1 -0.4
Participating states (non-EU)
Iceland Iceland 0.3 0.2 0.6 1.2 0.7
Israel Israel
Norway Norway 5.0 3.8 1.9 5.1 15.8 0.0
Turkey Turkey 0.9 2.0 0.3 3.2 -1.3
Partner countries
South Korea South Korea 1.1 1.5 3.3 1.6 7.5 0.4
Switzerland Switzerland 6.3 5.3 8.2 5.9 5.7 31.4 -0.1
Total 45.0 60.8 63.9 66.7 11.6 248.1 0.4
Note1: Switzerland is for the period 2014-2016 a Eurostars-2 Partner Country within the meaning of the Eurostars-2 legal basis. Source: authors’ own calculations based on ESE Eurostars-2 database - version as of December 2016.
Table 2 indicates that in total, the budget commitment of NFB has increased very slightly
(+0.4%) from the first cut off (2014) to the fifth one (first half of 2016). Romania
(1.7%), The Czech Republic (1.5%) and Germany (1.5%) are the three countries with
the highest increase rates. On the other hand, Finland (-2.7%), Hungary (-1.3%) and
Turkey (-1.5) exhibit the highest decreases.
21
Table 3. Eurostars-2 projects’ budget by source of funding (in millions €)
country Participant total costs (M€)
EC commitment
NFB commitment
total Participant share of total costs (in %)
EC funding with respect to
total project costs (in %)
NFB commitment with respect to total project costs (in %)
I ii iii iv=i+ii+iii i*100/iv ii*100/iv iii*100/iv
Participating states (EU 28)
Austria 2.0 3.0 9.1 14.1 14.18 21,3 64,5
Belgium 18.6 2.3 9.0 29.9 62.13 7,7 30,1
Bulgaria 3.5 0.3 1.2 5.0 70.31 6,0 24,0
Croatia 0.3 0.0 0.3 100.00 0,0 0,0
Cyprus 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.8 75.82 0,0 12,5
Czech Republic 7.3 0.7 3.0 11.0 66.46 6,4 27,3
Denmark 41.3 5.7 22.6 69.6 59.35 8,2 32,5
Estonia
Finland 11.4 1.0 3.8 16.2 70.60 6,2 23,5
France 71.5 3.8 15.2 90.5 79.06 4,2 16,8
Germany 92.7 8.9 35.7 137.4 67.49 6,5 26,0
Greece
Hungary 3.0 0.3 1.1 4.3 68.67 7,0 25,6
Ireland 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.9 100.00 0,0 0,0
Italy 5.3 0.0 5.3 100.00 0,0 0,0
Latvia 1.3 0.1 0.4 1.7 71.94 5,9 23,5
Lithuania 5.8 0.6 2.5 9.0 64.86 6,7 27,8
Luxembourg 1.5 0.2 0.6 2.3 66.52 8,7 26,1
Malta
Netherlands 92.5 7.5 29.8 129.8 71.28 5,8 23,0
Poland 5.0 0.5 1.9 7.3 68.09 6,8 26,0
Portugal 0.8 0.1 0.3 1.2 71.92 8,3 25,0
Romania 2.8 0.3 1.3 4.4 63.34 6,8 29,5
Slovakia 1.3 0.1 0.5 1.9 67.40 5,3 26,3
Slovenia 2.8 0.1 0.3 3.2 88.54 3,1 9,4
Spain 48.2 4.0 16.1 68.3 70.52 5,9 23,6
Sweden 52.3 4.6 18.4 75.3 69.50 6,1 24,4
United Kingdom 41.9 4.0 16.1 62.0 67.57 6,5 26,0
Participating states (non EU)
Iceland 3.0 0.3 1.2 4.5 66.88 6,7 26,7
Israel 2.8 0.0 2.8 100.00 0,0 0,0
Norway 52.3 4.0 15.8 72.1 72.54 5,5 21,9
Turkey 5.3 0.8 3.2 9.4 57.02 8,5 34,0
Partner countries
South Korea 12.2 1.9 7.5 21.6 56.52 8,8 34,7
Switzerland 66.5 7.9 31.4 105.8 62.90 7,5 29,7
Total 680.6 62.0 248.1 990.7 68.70 6.3 25.0
Note1: Switzerland is for the period 2014-2016 a Eurostars-2 Partner Country within the meaning of the Eurostars-2 legal basis. Source: authors’ own calculations based on ESE Eurostars-2 database - version as of December 2016.
As it can be seen from Table 3, the top 4 participating countries with the highest NFB
commitment are Germany (35.7 million €); The Netherlands (29.8); Denmark (22.6) and
Sweden (18.4). The share of EC funding with respect to the total project costs varies
across participating countries. This can be explained by the fact that the funding rates
vary from one country to the other (for instance in Romania, universities cannot be
directly funded since the budget depends on the ministry of industry and not from the
Ministry of education). Table 3 indicates that the top 5 countries with the relative highest
EC funding are Austria (21.3%), Luxembourg (8.7%), Portugal (8.3%), Denmark (8.2%),
and Belgium (7.7%).
22
Table 4 summarises the current funding rates for Eureka projects for the majority of
EUREKA countries.
Table 4. Current funding rates for Eureka projects Country current funding rate (, 2017) Max funding / notes
Austria 60% Belgium 50 to 80
Bulgaria 75 to 80 €375.000 to €400.000
Croatia 50 150
Cyprus Up to 70 175.000*
Czech 50% 71 000 or 107 000
Denmark None available Finland Typically loans 70, grants 50 France Up to 65 None
Germany 25-55
380,000 of costs eligible for funding
Greece Hungary up to 75
Iceland 50
Max funding amount per project 30 MISK for 3 yrs
Ireland Up to 50 €450.00
Israel max. 60 no limit
Italy 45%
Latvia
50 + 10 ** + 15 ***
The total maximum amount of aid from the eligible costs for one participant is EUR60 000.00 / year.
Lithuania max 50 / max. 65 868 860 (per project)
Luxembourg Up to 70
Pre-competitive development: up to 45% Industrial research: up to 70%
Netherlands max. 25 for Research max. 25 for Development
5 000 000
Norway 30-35 No limit
Poland
Up to 80
For medium entreprise the percentage of eligible costs funded is 75%. For development research it is of 60% for small companies and 50% for medium entreprises.
Portugal 45-80
Romania 7000% up to ~ 100,000/year/project
Slovenia 5000%
100000 per year per project partner
Spain Up to 85
South Korea 6700%
Totally 1,000,000€ (1€ = 1500KRW) / project (Max 3 years)
Sweden max. 50
SME as defined by the European Union
Switzerland None available Turkey 75
UK N/A
Source: http://www.eurekanetwork.org/countries/belgium (other countries can be selected on the right hand side of the web page).
23
Table 5. National contribution to the Eurostars-2 programme relatively to the national knowledge base (as measured by BERD)
indicative budget
budget contribution/ BERD country
2014 2015 2016 2017 sum 5 first cut offs BERD 2014 UE15=100
Participating states (EU 28) 86.1 84.1 41.2 82.9 211.3 298,811 100.0
Austria 3.5 3.5 1.8 3.5 8.8 10,444 118.5
Belgium 1.7 1.1 0.6 1.1 3.4 10,072 47.3
Bulgaria 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.5 1.3 433 408.0
Croatia 0.5 0.7 0.3 0.7 1.5 375 562.1
Cyprus 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.4 1.0 80 1670.7
Czech Republic 1.0 1.0 0.5 1.0 2.5 3,250 108.8
Denmark 5.0 5.0 2.5 5.0 12.5 8,054 219.1
Estonia
0.0 303 0.0
Finland 3.8 3.8 1.9 3.8 9.4 6,071 218.7
France 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 25.0 48,643 72.7
Germany 15.0 15.0 7.5 15.0 37.5 87,188 60.8
Greece
0.0 1,684 0.0
Hungary 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.8 1.9 1,511 175.0
Ireland 1.0 1.0 0.5 1.0 2.5 2,921 121.0
Italy 2.5 2.2
4.7 21,892 30.2
Latvia 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.4 1.0 152 928.4
Lithuania 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.6 1.1 387 387.3
Luxembourg 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.6 1.5 671 316.1
Malta 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.4 1.0 68 1987.0
Netherlands 13.8 13.7 6.9 13.7 34.4 13,630 357.1
Poland 1.1 1.1 0.6 1.1 2.8 4,317 91.7
Portugal
1.0
0.5 1.0 2,289 61.8
Romania 1.0 1.0 0.5 1.0 2.5 782 451.9
Slovak republic 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.9 927 141.8
Slovenia 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.5 1.1 853 187.3
Spain 5.6 5.3 3.8 7.5 14.6 13,172 157.0
Sweden 10.0 10.0 4.5 9.0 24.5 14,581 237.6
United Kingdom 6.4 4.5 2.3 4.5 13.2 43,878 42.5
Participating states
Iceland 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.5 1.3 332 533.1
Israel 2.5 2.5 1.3 2.5 6.3
0.0
Norway 7.3 6.5 3.5 7.0 17.2 6,739 361.7
Turkey 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 10.0 6,055 233.5
Partner countries
South Korea 6.5 6.5 2.0 4.0 15.0 45,585 46.5
Switzerland 4.0 4.0 3.5 7.0 11.5 15,357 105.9
Total 110.9 108.0 69.8 140.2 288.6
Note1: BERD = Business Enterprise R&D. Note2: Switzerland is for the period 2014-2016 a Eurostars-2 Partner Country within the meaning of the Eurostars-2 legal basis Source: authors’ own calculations based on ESE Eurostars-2 database - version as of December 2016, Eurostars-2 Annual Work Plan (2014,2015,2016) and Eurostars-2 Annual Report 2016.
24
Figures highlighted in red in the 6th column of Table 5 are the ones that contribute most
in absolute terms to the Eureka budget. On the other hand, figures highlighted in red in
the last column of Table 4 are associated with countries (e.g. Belgium, France, Germany,
Italy, Portugal or UK) that contribute relatively less to the Eureka budget comparatively
to the importance of their knowledge bases (as measured by their total expenditures on
R&D in the private sector). The benchmark is for EU28 = 100. On the contrary, countries
like Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, Malta, Romania, Slovak republic, or Slovenia - despite their relative small
contribution to the Eureka budget - are in relative terms contributing more if we
relativize their contribution to the importance of their private R&D. Finally, Denmark,
Finland, The Netherlands Spain and Sweden are in relative terms the most important
contributors to the Eureka budget.
Table 6 shows the geographic distribution of participants of approved Eurostars-2
projects. This table is not symmetric and must be read line by line. For instance, for
Austria, considering all the approved projects with at least one Austrian organization,
leads to a total of 170 participants among which 68 are from Austria, 36 from Germany
and 12 from the Netherlands. One interesting fact that emerges from this table is that
overall, participants of a given country tend to collaborate mainly with other participants
from the same country or from neighbouring countries (border-related effect).
25
Table 6. Geographic distribution of participants of approved Eurostars-2 projects
AT BE BG HR CY CZ DK FI FR DE HU IE IT LV LT LU NL PL PT RO SR SL ES SE UK IS IL NO TR KR CH Total
Austria 68 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 7 39 1 0 1 0 2 0 12 1 0 2 2 2 5 4 3 0 2 4 3 0 7 170
Belgium 2 36 0 0 0 4 6 1 8 9 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 0 0 2 0 2 3 88
Bulgaria 0 0 8 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 19
Croatia 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Cyprus 0 0 3 0 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14
Czech Republic 1 4 0 0 0 24 2 0 4 4 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 4 0 0 1 0 2 2 55
Denmark 2 6 0 0 0 1 127 3 12 22 0 0 2 0 1 0 16 0 0 0 0 2 4 20 8 2 0 16 5 4 13 266
Finland 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 23 5 5 0 0 0 0 2 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 5 6 4 0 0 7 0 2 0 72
France 8 7 0 0 0 2 18 4 126 25 2 2 4 0 3 2 31 2 0 1 1 1 23 12 8 0 1 2 1 0 34 320
Germany 36 7 3 0 1 5 20 3 18 239 4 0 2 0 5 2 60 1 2 2 1 1 24 16 16 0 1 9 2 5 33 518
Greece
Hungary 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 4 13 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 29
Ireland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6
Italy 1 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 3 4 1 0 16 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 8 49
Latvia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 18
Lithuania 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 10 0 0 0 4 21 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 1 4 1 0 1 0 0 1 5 60
Luxembourg 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 Malta
Netherlands 10 3 0 0 3 1 18 4 24 59 1 0 4 1 2 1 168 3 1 1 0 0 15 15 22 0 2 3 1 1 21 385
Poland 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 13 0 3 0 0 3 3 4 0 0 1 0 0 4 43
Portugal 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 18
Romania 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 12 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 34
Slovakia 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15
Slovenia 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 16
Spain 6 3 2 0 1 1 7 3 23 29 0 0 3 0 1 1 17 2 0 9 0 0 100 7 10 0 0 3 2 7 6 243
Sweden 3 3 0 0 3 0 26 7 7 14 2 0 2 1 3 0 14 2 2 0 0 1 10 118 14 0 0 18 6 9 26 292
United Kingdom 4 2 2 0 0 4 9 4 10 21 3 0 1 1 1 0 32 3 0 0 0 1 12 13 95 2 1 20 2 0 7 251
Iceland 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 1 14
Israel 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 1 0 0 0 14
Norway 3 3 0 0 0 1 21 6 2 13 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 4 21 16 0 1 78 0 4 3 183
Turkey 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 5 2 0 0 0 15 3 2 47
South Korea 0 1 0 0 0 2 3 2 0 6 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 3 1 28 2 58
Switzerland 7 2 0 0 0 3 12 0 36 45 0 1 5 0 5 0 25 3 1 0 0 0 7 28 7 1 0 2 1 4 136 331
Total 172 81 20 2 18 53 294 62 303 571 30 6 44 17 52 11 417 34 15 33 11 15 235 294 229 12 14 172 40 74 315 3653
Source: authors’ own calculations based on ESE Eurostars-2 database - version as of December 2016. NB: Switzerland is for the period 2014-2016 a Eurostars-2 Partner Country within the meaning of the Eurostars-2 legal basis
26
Figure 2. Share (in %) of approved Eurostars-2 participants by type of organisation - (2014-
November 2016)
Source: Own calculations based on ESE Eurostars-2 database - version as of December 2016.
Figure 2 indicates that about two-third of participants are R&D active SMEs, while 2.6%
of participants are non-R&D SMEs. These statistics clearly show that Eurostars-2 projects
are mainly granted to support SMEs active in R&D activities. The other two categories of
organizations which received an important part of Eurostars-2 funding are universities
and research institutes with 15% and 10% approval rates respectively. These two other
statistics further confirm that the focus of Eurostars-2 projects is R&D activities.
Figure 3 also show the distribution of participants of approved Eurostars-2 projects by
type of organisation for the top 10 countries participating in this programme. Here also
the R&D performing SMEs represent in all countries more than 50% of all participants
with the highest share in the UK (96%) and the lowest (51%) in Austria.
R&D performing SMEs 66%
University 15%
Research institute 10%
Large company 5%
Non R&D performing SMEs
3%
Other 1%
R&D performing SMEs University Research institute
Large company Non R&D performing SMEs Other
27
Figure 3. Top 10 countries in Eurostars-2: share of participants by type of organisation
Source: authors’ own calculations based on ESE Eurostars-2 database - version as of December 2016. NB: Switzerland is for the period 2014-2016 a Eurostars-2 Partner Country within the meaning of the Eurostars-2 legal basis.
28
Figure 4. Share (in %) of approved Eurostars-2 participants by technological area
(2014-November 2016)
Source: authors’ own calculations based on ESE Eurostars-2 database - version as of December, 2016.
Figure 4 shows that Eurostars-2 participants come mainly from Biotech, ICT, and
Industrial sectors respectively followed by the Environment and Energy sectors. These
statistics tend to suggest that, at first, Eurostars-2 projects beneficiaries came from only
five technological sectors. Second, among the five sectors, one was not particularly
targeted as focus of intervention as it was the case for categories of beneficiaries where
we saw that R&D SMEs were predominant.
Figure 5. Share (in %) of projects by economic (market) sector
Source: authors’ own calculations based on ESE Eurostars-2 database - version as of December 2016.
Figure 5 also displays the distribution of approved projects by economic sector. The
ranking of sectors according to their importance (number of project) is more or less in
line with the ranking based on the (more aggregated) distribution in terms of
technological sectors (see Figure 4). The energy sector is at the bottom of the scale in
Figure 4, whereas in Figure 5 it is at the middle. This can be explained by the fact that in
the economic distribution, the energy sector includes not only the producers of energy
but also the distributors and the firms operating in the services sectors for energy.
30%
29%
24%
13%
4%
Biotech ICT Industrial Environment Energy
31.0
13.6
8.8
8.3
7.3
6.5
6.3
4.8
3.8
3.8
3.5
2.3
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
Biotechnology / Molecular Biology
Computer Related
Medical / Health Related
Construction And Building Products
Transportation
Communications
Energy
Services
Industrial Products / Manufacturing
Other Electronics Related
Consumer Related
Agriculture, Forestry And Fishing
29
Figure 6. Share (in %) of projects by number of participants per project (2014-November 2016)
Source: authors’ own calculations based on ESE Eurostars-2 database - version as of December, 2016.
Figure 6 shows that the less participants are in a project, the more we observe approved
projects. Actually, projects with two or three participants constitute 68% of all approved
projects while those with four, five or six participants constitute only 32%. These
statistics tend to suggest that beyond the number of participants in each Eurostars-2
projects might determine the likelihood of being approved. Figures 7 and 8 show the
share of projects that started and ended in a given year.
Figure 7. Number of participants (in %) in Eurostars-2 projects that started their project in a given year - (2014-November 2016)
Source: authors’ own calculations based on ESE Eurostars-2 database - version as of December, 2016.
33%
35%
21%
7% 4%
2 3 4 5 6 or more
13%
39%
47%
1%
2014 2015 2016 2017
30
Figure 8. Number of participants (in %) in Eurostars-2 projects that completed their project in a
given year - (2014-November 2016) - Projections
Source: authors’ own calculations based on ESE Eurostars-2 database - version as of December, 2016.
6. RESPONSES TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS
This section aims at responding the five evaluation questions (relevance and
appropriateness, efficiency, effectiveness, coherence, and European added value) using
all the material gathered during the study (interviews and evidence based facts extracted
from the ESE database of Eurostars-2 projects, previous reports,…)
6.1 Relevance and appropriateness
Eurostars-2 supports international innovative projects led by research and development-
performing small- and medium-sized enterprises (R&D-performing SMEs). Eurostars-2
targets R&D SMEs transnational research which contributes to innovation,
competitiveness, growth and job creation. It contributes to speeding up the development
of the technologies and innovations that will underpin tomorrow’s businesses and help
innovative European SMEs to grow into world-leading companies. Eurostars-2 is jointly
undertaken by 34 Participating states and Partner countries and the European Union. In
the 2014-2020 period, it has a total public budget of €1.14 billion.
The Eurostars-2 programme is well aligned with the overall European Research and
Innovation policy objectives. The role of SMEs for the economy has never been so
important. Eurostars aims to bring increased value to the economy, higher growth and
more job opportunities. Eurostars targets therefore all the market sectors, and with its
bottom-up approach, it supports the development of rapidly marketable innovative
19%
34%
32%
15%
2016 2017 2018 2019
31
products, processes and services that help improve the daily lives of people around the
world. The Eurostars-2 programme is considered a very valuable tool to foster R&D
performing SMEs. It is complementary to other programmes for SMEs but with the added
value of encouraging transnational research cooperation between at least two SMEs. The
full bottom-up approach, together with the small size of the consortia which eases
project management, are also added value of the programme. In addition, other key
strengths are represented by the geographic coverage, with extra-EU partners allowed,
the long-term perspective, and the quite high success rate with an average of 30%.
These characteristics could attract a relatively high share of newcomers to collaborative
European funding, roughly 50%. As illustrated in Figures 2 and 3, the most represented
partners are R&D performing SMEs, close to two thirds. A significant share is represented
by research centres and universities (one fourth in total), demonstrating the capacity of
the programme in fostering technology transfer activities from the research environment
to industrial applications. The participation of large enterprises is beneficial, as it provides
established marketing channels and lead clients for the innovative solutions developed
within the projects.
A more in-depth analysis of the ESE Eurostars-2 database also shows that:
79% of Eurostars-2 projects have at least two R&D performing SMEs. For 58% of
these projects (i.e. with at least 2 R&D performing SMEs) 70% of the total project
costs are concentrated in two R&D performing SMEs. These figures indicate that
beneficiaries of Eurostars-2 projects are mainly R&D performing SMEs.
84 % of R&D performing SMEs in Eurostars-2 projects fund at least 20% of the project
total costs.
11 projects involving at least one R&D performing SME (out of 470 of this type of
projects) have R&D performing SMEs from the same participating state. In other
words, most of R&D performing SMEs which participate in Eurostars-2 projects
perform collaborations with other participating states.
Finally, a recent report16 shows that Eurostars-1 projects with only two R&D performing
SMEs participating have higher performances compared to larger consortia (i.e. three or
more participants in the same project). This result was also found in the econometric
analysis carried out in the ongoing current study on the socio-economic impact of Eureka
projects.
The main issue highlighted during the interviews with the various stakeholders rests in
the difficulty for in Art. 185 to align or harmonise the national rules of the Participating
States (convergence issue), and to the difference of procedures between them, also in
terms of timing. Other issues were mentioned as well among which the different
procedures at stake across the Participating States or the possibility to have projects that
are de facto mono beneficiary.
16 Analysis of impact of completed Eurostars-1 projects carried out by Ernst and Young (2017) and
commissioned by the European Commission.
32
In light of these findings, the expert group proposes the following recommendations that
could be implemented
in the short term:
Recommendation: In order to strengthen the EU added value, at least two R&D
performing SMEs from two different Participating States should be mandatory in the
proposed project consortium with a fair distribution of activities and a good balanced
budget (20% minimum for each R&D performing SME, i.e. 70% minimum for both). This
is important to respect the main feature of Eurostars-2 Joint Programme to go to the
transnational market with innovative products within two years after projects’
completion.
Recommendation: The core objective of Eurostars-2 is to introduce into the market two
years after the project completion the new products, services or processes: this should
be organised and effectively implemented at programme level as well as project level.
The two years requirement should be a clear criterion to take into consideration in the
evaluation process. Follow-up and market readiness measures should be monitored by
the Participating States which have a much better knowledge of their beneficiaries and
their market potential.
In the long term:
Recommendation: The call for convergence of Art.185 creates difficulties and tensions
between Participating States that are reluctant to further harmonize the national rules
and procedures and funding rates for Eurostars-2. Article 185 TFEU may be not the most
appropriate instrument in absence of further convergence possibilities.
6.2 Efficiency and use of resources
The Eurostars programme is considered successful in achieving one of its main
objectives, the promotion of transnational market-oriented research activities for R&D
performing SMEs in any market area. The evaluation criteria based on a time to market
of two years for the achieved results is strongly in line with the idea of promoting new
and improved products, processes, and services. The mix of national and central
management, and of national and central funding, as well, may in some instances
successfully increase the accessibility for R&D performing SMEs to public funding, and
foster the harmonisation of different national funding mechanisms under a common
policy umbrella. However, different funding rules and rates represent a major issue in the
programme (see Table 4). These differences arise because of the lack of convergence in
aligning, harmonising and synchronising national funding mechanisms due to policy
orientations and implementation of Participating States. As a result, the share of EC
funding with regards to the total project costs varies across participating countries. This
can for instance be explained by the fact that the funding rates vary from one country to
the other (for instance in Romania, universities cannot be directly funded since the
budget depends from the ministry for industry and not for education). Table 3 lists the
top 5 countries with the highest EC funding, namely Austria; Luxembourg; Portugal;
Denmark; and Belgium. In addition, timing issues represent an additional limit to
maximise the programme efficiency (e.g. in Italy, where a procedural problem linked to
the approval time of the national budget act, too close to the first cut off to launch a call,
and too far from the September cut-off, when Italian funds are all normally allocated).
It is worth to notice the role Eurostars-2 plays in fostering the access to public R&D
funding by R&D performing SMEs. The limited size of consortia and the bottom-up
approach are attractive features, for instance when compared to Horizon 2020, where
the complicated management structures associated to large projects or the extreme
33
competitiveness of instruments, like the SME Instrument, may represent limiting features
for SMEs.
The comitology system underlying the governance of Eurostars-2 could be simplified, for
instance by reducing the multiple layers characterizing it. The time to grant has been
improved in comparison to Eurostars-1, and it should be aligned with the general Horizon
2020 time to grant of 8 months. However, because of differences across Participating
States, of administrative efficiency and the mix of national and European level
management, for some projects it may take a significant amount of time before all
participants can sign the contracts.
Funding synchronisation processes create delays in the time to sign contracts. This in
turn can jeopardize the fast introduction of new products and services into the final
market or reduce the technological performance of Eurostars projects (see the Ernst &
Young report). Box 2 discusses the concept of innovation time-based competition and
stresses the importance for companies to be fast when introducing new or improved
products, processes or services to achieve and maintain a sustainable competitive
advantage.
Box 2. Innovation time-based competition
Time-based competition is the extension of Just-In-Time (JIT) production into every aspect of the product
delivery cycle, from research and development through marketing and distribution of the final product. Even quality, while still key to success, is not the competitive advantage it once was in many industries.
Time-based competition is a broad-based competitive strategy which stresses time as the major element for achieving and maintaining a sustainable competitive advantage. It seeks to reduce the time needed to propose, develop, manufacture, market and deliver its products.
Time-based competition materialises in two different forms: fast to market and fast to produce. Firms that compete with to-market speed emphasize reductions in design lead-time. In other words, the firm has the capability to minimize the time it takes to develop new products or make fast design changes. Products 50% over budget but introduced on time have been found to generate higher profit levels than products brought to market within budget but six months late. Also, this form allows firms to gain a market advantage by being able to consistently introduce more new products or large numbers of improved products more rapidly than its competitors, thereby dominating the market. Sun Microsystems, for instance, attained leadership in engineering workstations by reducing (by 50% compared to competitors) the time required to design and to introduce new systems.
Additionally, these firms are now moving further along the learning curve than the competition. Both factors in the long run increase barriers to entry by competitors. Fast-to-product firms emphasize speed in responding to customer demands for existing products. Wal-Mart, for instance, has been able to dominate its industry by replenishing its stores twice as fast as its competitors. Firms competing in this field concentrate on lead-time diminution throughout the system, from the time the customer places an order until the customer in the end receives the product. This includes the capability to reduce the time it takes to manufacture products as well as the capability to shorten the time between taking a customer's order and actually delivering the product (delivery speed). These reductions in lead-time come typically together with significant reductions in inventory levels. As with JIT, there is less rework, fewer supervisors, lower carrying costs, less overhead, and so forth, as well as enhanced quality and on-time delivery performance. Some customers, known as impatient customers, place a great deal of value on reduced lead-time. These customers are willing to pay a premium to get their goods and services quickly. This combination of lower costs and higher revenues contributes significantly to an improved corporate performance.
Source: adapted from: http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Str-Ti/Time-Based-Competition.html#ixzz4dGUtlw5Y
The central evaluation process is widely recognised by the different stakeholders
consulted as positive and well structured, being fast, transparent, and professional.17
Evaluation reports are considered complete and well detailed. Potential issues, but also
17 A detailed description of the evaluation process of the Eurostars-2 programme is available at: https://www.eurostars-eureka.eu/eurostars-process-evaluation
34
areas of improvement, are represented by the fact that the evaluation criteria are
numerous and narrow, which precludes an overall view of whole projects’ quality, as well
as by the fact that no feedback about the projects’ outcomes is provided to evaluators. In
addition, the common ranking of projects from different technological areas may prove
difficult and the outcomes of the discussions and decision-making process of the
Independent Evaluation Panel (IEP) should be more transparent.
In terms of fostering international collaborations, the participation of extra-EU countries
is a strength of the programme, and numerous projects are cross borders, being from
neighbouring countries (see Table 5). However, data show that many projects are
implemented starting from national collaborations, and Southern and Eastern-Central
European countries are (except for Spain) still under-represented (cfr Table 1).
Based on a survey targeting unsuccessful Eurostars-1 applicants18, Figure 9 indicates that
for this programme, the challenges to find suitable partners, administrative burden and
bureaucracy associated with national as well as international funding and also the lack of
transparency on how EUREKA works are considered to be the primary barriers to
participate in Eurostars-1 projects. Notably, just 24 % of participants emphasized the
fact that EUREKA provides just a label but no funding as being a barrier. In order to shed
some more light into these issues, a more detailed survey investigating the main barriers
and obstacles for participation of under-represented Participating States should be
carried-out. The task force established by Eurostars members did not really address this
issue. The time frame and the resource limitations did not allow tackling this aspect.
Figure 9. Barriers to participate in the Eurostars-1 programme (% of respondents)
Note: Multiple answers were possible.
18 Impact Assessment of EUREKA Network Projects and Cluster Projects (2017) ongoing study commissioned by the EUREKA Secretariat.
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0
Less attractive compared to other funding programmes
Expected legal problems with partners
Expected low success rates
EUREKA provides just a label, but no funding
Management of the consortium
Finding suitable partners
Administrative barriers
Lack of transparency on how EUREKA works
Perceived bureaucracy assoc. with internat. Funding
Perceived bureaucracy assoc. with nat. funding
35
In light of these findings, the expert group proposes the following recommendations:
Recommendation: Shorter time to contract will permit to avoid jeopardizing the
innovation potential of projects. Time to contract should be calculated at the project level
when the consortium agreement is signed and not at the participant level when they sign
their grant agreement with their respective NFB.
Recommendation: The EC should consider in the short term granting the EU top-up to
those Eurostars projects for which grant agreements have not been signed within one
year of the cut-off period.
Recommendation: An in depth and representative survey of the barriers encountered
by under-represented Participating States should be carried out following two vectors:
exogenous barriers and endogenous barriers. A particular emphasis will be put on the
role of NPCs of under-represented Participating States.
Recommendation: Put in place a follow-up of the results of funded projects (i.e. FiRs)
and their introduction into the market within two years after projects’ completion (MIRs)
to better inform Participating States and the European Commission.
Recommendation: The current evaluation process is too fragmented and the evaluation
criteria are too numerous and narrow to have a realistic overview of the project's quality.
More feedbacks should be given to the evaluators about the outcomes of the submitted
projects they examined.
6.3 Effectiveness
The Eurostars-2 programme targets mostly R&D performing SMEs (see Figure 1 and
Figure 3) through transnational R&D market oriented (high Technological Readiness
Levels) industrial collaborations. With 66% of all participants, the presence of R&D
performing SMEs in Eurostars-2 is somewhat lower than it was the case in Eurostars-1
(72%).19 The EU Funding contribution for Eurostars-2 has a significant influence on the
success of the Programme, and for R&D performing SMEs. The number of projects
submitted and the total number of thirty-five participating countries are also indicators of
this success. Eurostars-2 is particularly effective in mobilising national funding, even
though major differences exist between the participating countries (Figure 10).
19 Sources: Figure 1 and Final Evaluation of the Eurostars Joint Programme (2014).
36
Figure 10. Total NFBs commitment (share of countries in % with respect of total)
As can be seen in Figure 11, Eurostars-2 contribution to Research & Development and
Innovation activities in Europe and partner countries varies significantly across
participating countries. Among the Top 5 countries, we found Germany (664 participants
of approved proposals), The Netherlands (432); Spain (421); France (353) Switzerland
(353). The countries with the lowest numbers of submitted proposals are: Greece (1),
Malta (3); Estonia (4); Croatia (11); Ireland (13); Luxembourg (14).
The success rate varies as well across participating countries, and is averaged at 30.6%
which is considered by the stakeholders as high success rate. As can it can be seen in
figure 12, the Top 5 successful applicant countries include Norway (40.0%); The
Netherlands (38.9%); Switzerland (38.5%); Sweden (37.8%); Denmark (37.7%). The 5
less successful applicant countries are Estonia (0%); Greece (0%); Malta (0%); Croatia
(9.1%); Cyprus (9.3%).
35.7
31.4 29.8
22.6
18.4
16.1 16.1 15.8 15.2
9.1 9.0 7.5
3.8 3.2 3.0 2.5 1.9 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
Ge
rman
y
Swit
zerl
and
Ne
the
rlan
ds
Den
mar
k
Swed
en
Spai
n
Un
ited
Kin
gdo
m
No
rway
Fran
ce
Au
stri
a
Bel
giu
m
Sou
th K
ore
a
Fin
lan
d
Turk
ey
Cze
ch R
epu
blic
Lith
uan
ia
Po
lan
d
Ro
man
ia
Bu
lgar
ia
Icel
and
Hu
nga
ry
Luxe
mb
ou
rg
Slo
vaki
a
Latv
ia
Slo
ven
ia
Po
rtu
gal
Cyp
rus
Irel
and
Cro
atia
Isra
el
Ital
y
37
Figure 11. Number of participants of approved Eurostars-2 projects by country
Figure 12. Success rate (in %)
664
432 421
353 353 337
312 305
217 195
119 101 101 92
75 67 67 63 60 54 49 45 41 36 32 24 22 20 14 13 11 4 3 1 0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Ge
rman
y
Ne
the
rlan
ds
Spai
n
Fran
ce
Swit
zerl
and
Den
mar
k
Swed
en
Un
ited
Kin
gdo
m
Au
stri
a
No
rway
Ro
man
ia
Bel
giu
m
Cze
ch R
epu
blic
Sou
th K
ore
a
Fin
lan
d
Hu
nga
ry
Turk
ey
Lith
uan
ia
Po
lan
d
Cyp
rus
Ital
y
Bu
lgar
ia
Slo
vaki
a
Slo
ven
ia
Latv
ia
Isra
el
Po
rtu
gal
Icel
and
Luxe
mb
ou
rg
Irel
and
Cro
atia
Esto
nia
Mal
ta
Gre
ece
40.0 38.9 38.5
37.8 37.7
36.0 35.7 35.6
33.3 32.7
31.3 31.1 30.7 30.4 30.0 28.6
23.8 23.8 23.1 22.7 22.4 21.9 21.7 20.8
19.4 19.4 17.8
12.2
10.1 9.3 9.1
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
No
rway
Ne
the
rlan
ds
Swit
zerl
and
Swed
en
Den
mar
k
Ge
rman
y
Fran
ce
Bel
giu
m
Lith
uan
ia
Ital
y
Au
stri
a
Un
ited
Kin
gdo
m
Fin
lan
d
Sou
th K
ore
a
Icel
and
Luxe
mb
ou
rg
Cze
ch R
epu
blic
Spai
n
Irel
and
Po
rtu
gal
Turk
ey
Latv
ia
Po
lan
d
Isra
el
Slo
ven
ia
Hu
nga
ry
Bu
lgar
ia
Slo
vaki
a
Ro
man
ia
Cyp
rus
Cro
atia
Esto
nia
Gre
ece
Mal
ta
38
In terms of project implementation and monitoring, a stronger control of a project’s
impact in terms of “product innovation”, “successful placement of a product on the
market within two years after projects’ completion” or “sustainability of transnational
cooperation” would be beneficial, possibly by establishing common impact measurements
methodologies.
The Eurostars-2 programme is overall considered to play an adequate and complimentary
role in promoting excellence in technological research, development and demonstration.
This is due to many aspects. First, compared to the ERA-NETS, which are sectoral
programmes, Eurostars is a horizontal, bottom up approach, hence it diminishes
fragmentation. It is easier to manage, to follow and makes it understandable for the
beneficiaries; in addition, still in comparison with the ERA-Nets, more countries
participate, allowing more options of collaboration between the stakeholders. In
comparison to large national clustering programmes, it targets specifically SMEs, whilst
cluster programmes are normally driven by large companies. Finally, in comparison to
the SME instrument, it really fosters collaborative actions, and the evaluation process is
deemed more credible and transparent. From all the above reasons, the Eurostars-2
programme sits in a unique niche and strengthens the transnational cooperation and
research between SMEs and other research institutions.
From a market perspective, the Eurostars-2 programme addresses successfully different
technological areas and markets. The most represented technological areas are Biotech
and ICT domains, the latter horizontally impacting several market areas (see Figures 4
and 5).
In light of these findings, the expert group proposes the following recommendations:
In the short term:
Recommendation: R&D performing SMEs as eligibility criteria should be assessed at
national level as it is done for the SME self-declaration. Today, this action is pursued by
ESE.
Recommendation: Structure and content of MIR reports should be improved in order to
assess projects’ results on efficiency, effectiveness and pragmatism with regards to-go-
to-the-market.
In the long term:
Recommendation: Participating States should first receive MIRs and assess them on
efficiency, effectiveness and pragmatism to-go-to-the-market. Their assessment per
project should be addressed to the ESE as an element for the payment of the EC top-up.
It will allow creating an instrument for assessment of the bottlenecks for
commercialisation to build new go-to-the-market and financial tool boxes.
6.4 Coherence
The main objective of Eurostars-2 is to enhance European competitiveness through a
bottom-up approach aiming to support R&D performing SMEs by:
Creating an easily-accessible and sustainable European R&D support mechanism;
Encouraging R&D performing SMEs to create new economic activities based on their
R&D results and bring new products, processes and services to the market faster than
would otherwise be possible;
39
Promoting technological and business development and internationalisation.
These companies will develop some capabilities that will permit them to access to a
program that distinguishes itself from other types of public programs where SMEs have
not been traditionally represented. According to an analysis carried out by ESE, in the 5
first cut offs of Eurostars-2, 51% of the R&D performing SMEs who participate in
approved projects are less than 10 years old, and 49% of them have less than 10 Full-
Time Equivalents (FTEs). In comparison with Eurostars-1, the percentage of companies
with less than 10 FTEs with approved projects has increased.
National Funding Bodies (NFBs) play a key role in maintaining a sustainable mechanism -
they are the entry to the program, and the channel of first and main communication –
that facilitates the access for young and small SMEs with a weak structure and a short
experience in an international environment. The proximity to NFBs and the sharing of the
same language allow R&D performing SMEs to have a contact on a continuous basis and
to solve problems and doubts during the application process and the implementation of
the project. The Commission and Participating States agreed on certain amendments
concerning the smooth implementation of the programme and use of the EU top-up.
Convergence elements have been achieved in Eurostars-1 with the implementation of a
centralized evaluation procedure operated by ESE. Yet, in Eurostars-2, no further
developments of new convergence processes have been witnessed.
The legal basis enabling the cooperation between the Commission, Participating States
and the ESE is covered by Art. 185 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union (TFEU) which stipulates that ‘Article 185 initiatives’ are joint programmes
established by Member States or/and Associated Countries (‘Participating States’) with
the financial participation of the European Union. They are designed to meet particular
challenges in the research area and to complement Horizon 2020, to leverage national
with EU funding, and to create economies of scales and synergies between national and
EU research programmes and investments.
The Eurostars programme is part of the palette of instruments put in place for the benefit
of SMEs in Europe. It covers a specific niche that other EU, national and regional
interventions do not address for the benefit of SMEs in Europe. The Eurostars-2
Programme cohabits with another among the most popular instruments of H2020,
namely the SME Instrument. To secure their uniqueness, both programs must have their
own value and vision. What makes Eurostars-2 unique is the cooperation among two or
more international partners, with at least one R&D performing SME as a leader, although
one should note that, in its current architecture, the programme does not prevent de
facto "mono-beneficiarisation". If we analyse the composition of consortia in the first 5
cut offs of Eurostars-2, projects with at least 2-R&D performing SMEs coming from 2
different countries represents about 80% of all project funded. Furthermore, having a
research centre as a partner increases significantly the success rate.20
A main feature of the programme is the benefits it offers to all types of participants. For
large companies, the benefit can be the collaboration in an innovation projects together
with a small company, which by definition is more flexible and faster in incorporating
innovation in new products or process. For a R&D performing SME or a public research
institution, the benefit to collaborate with a larger company can rest in the higher
capabilities of the latter to transfer new knowledge to the market, especially at
international level.
The commercialization of the products is one the main goals of the programme, and
analysing data from Market Impact Reports (MIR) and Final Report (FIR) received until
20 Source: ESE internal document.
40
mid-January 2017, reveals that 77% of the products, processes and services have
already been brought to the final market, and the median time to market for
commercialisation of all participants is 1.2 years, with some variations depending on the
type of consortium.
According to the Eurostars-1 annual report 2016, the participation is expected to bring
benefits to R&D performing SMEs in terms of turnover growth and employment
improvement. The FiR and MIR data show that on average, participating SMEs benefitted
from additional turnover of € 0.55 million after completion of an Eurostars project, up to
the time of reporting. This amount increases to € 0.79 million for main participants. The
expected result for turnover within 2-3 years is € 2.96 million and € 4.47 million for main
SMEs. In terms of employment, 2.3 jobs are created on average by main participants up
to the time of reporting, and 1.9 for other types of partners. The number of new
employees expected is 5 for main partners and 3.1 for other partners. Based on this
data, we can conclude that the Eurostars program encourages SMEs to create new
economic activities based on R&D results and bring new products, processes and services
to the market, with an impact in their size. The impact on the technological base of the
SMEs is improved as well. The MIR and FIR reports indicate that around 37% of
participants report IPR activity, and for main participants this figure is of 45%.
In terms of weaknesses, a real issue as indicated in Figure 13 rests in the fact that some
participating states are transferring a lower amount than what was committed at the
beginning of the year. This situation raises a real concern as it creates a EU funding loss
should which should be avoided. This money is also lost by the EC because of the
annuality of the budget allocation. As a consequence, less projects and participants can
be funded as originally planned.
Figure 13. Difference between total NFB commitment to participant project costs and funding received (M€) - (2014- November 2016)
Source: authors’ own calculations based on ESE Eurostars-2 database - version as of December, 2016.
In terms of coherence, the call for convergence of Art.185 also creates difficulties and
tensions with Participating States that are unwilling to harmonize the national rules and
procedures for Eurostars-2. Participating States should otherwise apply those rules to
their national programmes given the full bottom-up feature of the Eurostars programme.
Finally, ESE overall operations are highly dependent on Eurostars-2 (almost 50% of the
ESE budget is dedicated to Eurostars-2 activities). Differentiation between EUREKA and
Eurostars-2 activities is not well distinguished in the various governance bodies (e.g. the
-30.0
-25.0
-20.0
-15.0
-10.0
-5.0
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
Swit
zerl
and
Den
mar
kB
elgi
um
Un
ited
Kin
gdo
mSp
ain
Lith
uan
iaC
zech
re
pu
blic
Au
stri
aB
ulg
aria
Icel
and
Slo
vak
rep
ub
licLa
tvia
Po
rtu
gal
Hu
nga
ryC
ypru
sSl
ove
nia
Luxe
mb
ou
rgP
ola
nd
Mal
taR
om
ania
No
rway
Cro
atia
Ge
rman
yIr
elan
dN
eth
erl
and
sIt
aly
Fin
lan
dSw
eden
Isra
el
Turk
ey
Sou
th K
ore
aFr
ance
Tota
l
41
systematic parallelism of the bodies of EUREKA and Eurostars-2 takes the same
composition and structure) as shown in the diagram presenting the current Eureka
governance Section.
In light of these findings, the expert group proposes the following recommendations:
In the short term:
Recommendation: In order to strengthen the EU added value, at least two R&D
performing SMEs from two different Participating States should be mandatory in the
proposed project consortium with a fair distribution of activities and a good balanced
budget (20% minimum for each R&D performing SME, i.e. 70% minimum for both). This
is important to respect the main feature of Eurostars-2 Joint Programme to go to the
transnational market within two years after projects’ completion.
Recommendation: The management of the programme should foresee the total annual
EU funding as requested in the Annual Work Plan (AWP). Losses of EU annual funding
should be avoided. The increase of the EU top-up rate to the NFBs in order to use the
left-over EU contribution is a counter-productive option because this will definitively
decrease the total budget (and impact) of the joint programme.
Recommendation: The Eurostars budget is around 50% of the total administrative
budget of ESE including EUREKA activities. This is not perceived in the institutional
governance of EUREKA. A distinctive (from EUREKA) Eurostars governance agenda
should be set up.
6.5 European Added Value
As an Article 185 initiative, the Eurostars-2 program aims at leveraging national efforts
for the European good in a way that delivers added value for Europe. The top up
contribution of the European Commission encourages member states to allocate funds in
this programme thanks to this leverage effect. The EU financial contribution to Eurostars-
2 shall be up to € 287 million.
The Eurostars programme is a well-established and long-lasting programme and
perceived by all stakeholders as an important part of the ERA. It represents an important
support for R&D performing SMEs in Europe to become relevant players in the world-wide
innovation ecosystem. Without exceeding this amount, the Union’s contribution shall be
at least one third of the contributions of the Participating States. It shall cover
operational costs, including the costs of the evaluation of proposals, and administrative
costs.
Until the moment of the publication of this report, the level of funding allocated by the EC
was € 62 million, indicating that it would be necessary to increase the efforts from all of
stakeholders to increment the number of applicants, and the budget of Member states, to
be able to use all the budget allocated by the EC.
Since the start of the Eurostars-2 programme in 2014, the budget commitment of
National Funding Bodies increased on an annual basis on average very slightly (0.4%),
with three countries with the highest increases, Romania (1.7%), The Czech Republic
(1.5%) and Germany (1.5%), while at the other end, Finland (-2.7%), Hungary (-1.3%)
and Turkey (-1.5%) exhibit a decrease of their contribution.
42
The number of countries active in the programme is made up of the 28 EU Members
states, 4 non-EU participating states, and 2 partner countries, totalling 34 countries, but
some of them with a level of participation very low or even null as Croatia, Estonia,
Greece, Ireland, or Malta. Other (larger) countries exhibit a much higher participation
such as for instance Germany, The Netherlands, Denmark, France, Switzerland or Spain.
8 participating countries concentrate more than half of all participating R&D SMEs:
Germany, The Netherlands, United Kingdom, France, Spain, Denmark, Switzerland,
Sweden and Norway.
Partner countries (EUREKA member countries or EUREKA associated countries that are
not EU member states or associated countries to H2020) are allowed to participate to the
programme but are not entitled to receive any EU top-up.
As already said, the number of applicants from different countries varies a lot, and the
success rate too. To achieve the goal of the programme and deliver further added value
for Europe, it would be necessary to work with the countries where the participation is
low and encourage them to support the application process of domestic SMEs and other
research organizations.
To emphasize the European meaning of the programme, and to differentiate it from other
cross border programmes, it would be necessary to reduce the number of consortia
involving participants from the same country or from neighbouring countries (language
border effect).
The uniqueness of the programme Eurostars comes from the fact that it is the only
European programme in near-the-market R&D industrial cooperations focusing on R&D
performing SMEs. It embeds the subsidiarity principle between the EC and the
Participating States that agreed on designating ESE as the DIS (Dedicated
Implementation Structure) of the programme. Its main goal is that the results of the
innovation projects steered by a R&D performing SME reach the final market in less than
2 years, with an increment in turnover and employment creation during the years after
the end of the project.
This type of companies often shows difficulties to participate in European R&D
Cooperation Projects, and this programme supports especially young and small R&D
performing SMEs to achieve for the first time the European level for their innovation
projects. It is often easier for R&D performing SMEs to participate in programmes at
regional and national levels, but thanks to the centralized evaluation process (with
independent experts and a peer to peer panel approving the research proposal), these
firms have an opportunity to test the level of their innovation and the international
interest of the developed technologies.
In light of these findings, the expert group proposes the following recommendations:
In the short term:
Recommendation: The uniqueness of the Eurostars programme in the European
panoply of market creating innovation tools to support SMEs should be preserved and re-
strengthened.
Recommendation: In order to strengthen the EU added value, at least two R&D
performing SMEs from two different Participating States should be mandatory in the
proposed project consortium with a fair distribution of activities and a good balanced
budget (20% minimum for each R&D performing SME, i.e. 70% minimum for both). This
is important to respect the main feature of Eurostars-2 Joint Programme to go to the
transnational market within two years after projects’ completion.
43
7. ANALYSIS OF IMPACT OF COMPLETED EUROSTARS-1 PROJECTS
Ernst and Young was contracted by the European Commission to evaluate the
performance and to assess the impact of the Eurostars-1 in terms of new products,
processes or services introduced into the market two years after the project’s
completion. The analysis was also aimed at providing concrete recommendations and
comments on how to better implement the Eurostars-2.
Extensive results and conclusion of this analysis are reported in Appendix 7. In light of
the findings of this report, the following conclusions and recommendations are proposed.
The data collection mechanism in place for the first five cut-offs of the Eurostars-1
significantly limits the monitoring and the measurement of the performance and impacts
attributable to the Eurostars projects. Moreover, reliability of data included in the Final
Report and Market Impact Report is limited.
In addition, the submission of Final Report and Market Impact Report and the
completeness of data is not granted as only a part of the beneficiaries submitted
completed reports. This might indicate the reporting activity was perceived as optional by
some beneficiaries.
Due to the reasons mentioned above, measuring the impacts of completed Eurostars
project is currently not possible in a comprehensive manner. As a result, this study was
based on a sample of 182 projects for which completed information was available from
the main beneficiaries. 88% of the analysed projects were successful in developing
products/ services/ processes within the project implementation period and 82% of these
successful projects succeeded in the commercialisation of results.
Regarding the latter, in terms of impacts of the participation in the Eurostars-1
programme on the SMEs that implemented them, the main conclusion is that apart from
the profitability of the investment, identified as limited, the other economic indicators for
which data is available cannot be used to assess the direct impacts of the participation in
the programme as they refer to the overall economic performance of the beneficiaries.
The study also revealed that the participation in Eurostars-1 programme is perceived by
the interviewed beneficiaries as a positive experience, having various types of benefits
(i.a knowledge and network-related). However, the beneficiaries also identified barriers
in the application phase (i.a. political, administrative), project implementation (i.a.
financial and technical) and commercialisation phase (i.a. demand and consortium-
related).
As main recommendations, the data collection, selection and monitoring mechanisms
should be improved.
Recommendation: The data collection, selection and monitoring mechanisms in the ESE
Database should be improved.
44
8. POST 2020: FUTURE OPTIONS AND MODELS
The Expert Group’s terms of reference request specific advice on the lessons learned
from the Article 18521 initiative and the options for future European programmes in this
area.
In light of recent developments concerning the participation of States and the experience
gained with the implementation of the programme, the issue arises whether the current
model of EU participation in the Eurostars-2 Programme is still the most effective and
best suited one in order to meet the EU’s goals and objectives.
Several instruments exist at the EC to support the co-ordination of national policies and
programmes with different intensities of convergence and coordination. The choice of
instrument in a given case should help maximise the European value-added of the EU’s
contributions under the specific framework conditions of national and co-operation
activities among the participating States.
Adapting and modifying Article 185
Article 185 provides the Commission with reasonable flexibility in terms of structuring its
participation and with regard to the rules and procedures for the provision of financial
support to national R&D activities. The current Eurostars-2 implementation model
calculates the EU contribution based on the funds spent (costs incurred) by the project
partners in the Participating States on a Call by Call basis. The Commission then
transfers the EU contribution to the ESE which serves as the implementation structure for
the Eurostars-2 Programme. The ESE distributes the EU funds to the national funding
bodies that manage the funding agreements with the national project partners involved
in Eurostars-2 projects. As discussed in the main report, in the past this financing model
was prone to significant levels of underspending of planned EU contributions as some
Participating States failed to commit sufficient resources to the Calls in order to fund all
proposals selected whilst other States with budget commitments had no national
applicants among the selected projects.
21 Article 185 TFEU states that "In implementing the multiannual framework programme, the Union may make provision, in agreement with the Member States concerned, for participation in research and development programmes undertaken by several Member States, including participation in the structures created for the execution of those programmes".
45
Other policy instruments
The European Commission can support co-ordination activities of national research
policies through other instruments than those based on Article 185. Other policy
instruments like Joint Programming Initiative (JPI) to address grand societal challenges
for Europe, ERA-Net, ERA-Net Co-Fund Actions, JTI have clearly been assessed as being
not relevant to the specificity of Eurostars.
At a practical level, the scope for action comes down to a handful of policy options each
of which more or less maps to a specific programme model or policy instrument as
described in the previous sub-section. These are summarised in Table 7 here below.
Table 7. Four policy scenarios for future Eurostars
Policy Approach Policy Definition and Associated Instrument
Implications
1) No EU participation No Art. 185 on a coordinated European initiative for market-oriented research cooperation of R&D-performing SMEs.
Implemented through: EUREKA Network. No dedicated European policy instrument is implemented.
Established networks under Eurostars-2 need to be differentiated (and if not
merged) from the EUREKA ones in terms of beneficiaries,
governance and financing instruments.
Loss of Eurostars-2 as a ‘flagship’ initiative on market-oriented research cooperation of R&D-performing SMEs.
2) Continue the Programme-based national collaboration
A successor programme to the current Eurostars-2 programme is established on
the same/similar basis.
Implemented through: Article
185 initiative
‘More of the same’, potentially continuing both the positive and negative features of the
current Programme.
Overcoming negative aspects would require major changes in the current structure of the
consortia; more promotion of the programme at national level, set-up of national
mechanisms to improve the commercialization of projects outcomes; etc.
EU added value would be limited if participation continues at current levels and
risk on EU's underuse of financial commitments will be significant.
To mitigate these risks, a coordination between Participating States and the future EIC policy might be
envisaged
3) Design a new Programme-based national collaboration
Participating States work together to align their policies and increase funding, with the
EC providing ‘glue financing’ for the sole administrative expenditure.
Convergence of National Policies will attain its momentum. Less accumulation
of EU and National rules for implementation. Collaboration continues in a more informal basis: no bilateral agreements
46
Implemented through: Article 185 initiative
between ESE and each Participating State are necessary for the allocation of
the EU contribution.
Less administrative burden for the EU, ESE and the
Participating States.
4) EU-funded collaboration European Union programme funded in the frame of the 9th Framework Programme under the umbrella of the future
European Innovation Council pilar ("EIC")
Implemented through: EU Framework Programme.
Collaboration continues under the umbrella of the future EIC under the 9th FP, not the EUREKA Framework. No more
coordination of National Policies in this field.
The future Eurostars will be part of the panoply of market-creating innovation instruments under the EIC.
Risk of developing "grey
zones'" with other existing activities addressing innovative SMEs.
The risk could be mitigated if the "uniqueness" of the programme is demonstrated
with success.
These options are not mutually exclusive and at this stage it would be premature to
recommend one over the other. A new Article 185 might be appropriate, provided
sufficient countries commit to fund such a programme over seven years (or however long
the next Framework Programme will run) and agree major changes in funding and
coordination (as listed in Table 7).
47
9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The major benefits of Eurostars rest in several niche features of the programme:
Bottom up approach;
Strengthening transnational cooperation among R&D performing SMEs;
Division of work between central structure (ESE) and decentralised structures (NFBs);
Introduction of new products, processes and services within two years of projects'
completion;
Targeting of SMEs without any previous international experience in transnational
industrial R&D collaborations.
On the other side, some weaknesses could also be identified:
High heterogeneity of times to contract;
Insufficient accuracy and up-to-date information in the ESE database;
Uncertainty to get funding for selected projects when the contribution of participating
States has been exhausted by other projects;
Lack of synchronization of procedures for implementing the programme;
Not enough Participating States at the EU level are active in the Eurostars-2 joint-
programme.
Based on these conclusions and the overall analysis, the expert group summarises the
following recommendations:
9.1 Key Issues
In order to strengthen the EU added value, at least two R&D performing SMEs from
two different Participating States should be mandatory in the proposed project
consortium with a fair distribution of activities and a good balanced budget (20%
minimum for each R&D performing SME, i.e. 70% minimum for both). This is
important to respect the main feature of Eurostars-2 Joint Programme to go to the
transnational market with innovative products within two years after projects’
completion.
(short term)
The core objective of Eurostars-2 is to introduce into the market two years after the
project completion the new products, services or processes: this should be organised
and effectively implemented at programme level as well as project level. The two
years requirement should be a clear criterion to take into consideration in the
evaluation process. Follow-up and market readiness measures should be monitored by
the Participating States which have a much better knowledge of their beneficiaries and
their market potential. (short term)
Recommendation: R&D performing SMEs as eligibility criteria should be assessed at
national level as it is done for the SME self-declaration. Today, this action is pursed by
ESE. (short term)
The uniqueness of the Eurostars programme in the European panoply of market
creating innovation tools to support SMEs should be preserved and re-strengthened.
(short term)
48
9.2 Programme implementation
The EC should consider in the short term granting the EU top-up to those Eurostars
projects for which grant agreements have not been signed within one year of the cut-
off period. (short term)
Shorter time to contract will permit to avoid jeopardizing the innovation potential of
projects. Time to contract should be calculated at the project level when the
consortium agreement is signed and not at the participant level when they sign their
grant agreement with their respective NFB. (short term)
The gathering of information from the centralized ESE database which should be
constantly updated would constitute an advantage to monitor the overall
implementation of the Joint programme. (short term)
The data collection, selection and monitoring mechanisms in the ESE Database should
be improved. (short term)
Participating States should first receive MIRs and assess them on efficiency,
effectiveness and pragmatism to-go-to-the-market. Their assessment per project
should be addressed to the ESE as an element for the payment of the EC top-up. It
will allow creating an instrument for assessment of the bottlenecks for
commercialisation to build new go-to-the-market and financial tool boxes. (long term)
Structure and content of MIR reports should be improved in order to assess projects’
results on efficiency, effectiveness and pragmatism with regards to-go-to-the-market.
(short term)
Put in place a follow-up of the results of funded projects (i.e. FiRs) and their
introduction into the market within two years after projects’ completion (MIRs) to
better inform Participating States and the European Commission. (short term)
The management of the programme should foresee the total annual EU funding as
requested in the Annual Work Plan (AWP). Losses of EU annual funding should be
avoided. The increase of the EU top-up rate to the NFBs in order to use the left-over
EU contribution is a counter-productive option because this will definitively decrease
the total budget (and impact) of the joint programme. (long term)
R&D performing SMEs as eligibility criteria should be assessed at national level as it is
done for the SME self-declaration. Today, this action is pursued by ESE. (short term)
9.3 Governance
The Eurostars budget is around 50% of the total administrative budget of ESE
including EUREKA activities. This is not perceived in the institutional governance of
EUREKA. A distinctive (from EUREKA) Eurostars governance agenda should be set up.
(short term)
An in depth and representative survey of the barriers encountered by under-
represented Participating States should be carried out following two vectors:
exogenous barriers and endogenous barriers. A particular emphasis will be put on the
role of NPCs of under-represented Participating States. (short term)
The call for convergence of Art.185 creates difficulties and tensions with Participating
States that are reluctant to further harmonize the national rules and procedures and
funding rates for Eurostars-2. Article 185 TFEU may be not the most appropriate
instrument in absence of further convergence potentialities. (long term).
49
The current evaluation process is too fragmented and the evaluation criteria are too
numerous and narrow to have a realistic overview of the project's quality. More
feedbacks should be given to the evaluators about the outcomes of the submitted
projects they examined. (short term)
50
ANNEX 1: EUROSTARS-2 JOINT PROGRAMME LEGAL BASIS
DECISION No 553/2014/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE
COUNCIL
of 15 May 2014
on the participation of the Union in a Research and Development Programme
jointly undertaken by several Member States aimed at supporting research and
development performing small and medium-sized enterprises
(Text with EEA relevance)
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular
Article 185, and the second paragraph of Article 188, thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,
Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),
Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),
Whereas:
(1) In its Communication of 3 March 2010 entitled ‘Europe 2020 A Strategy for smart,
sustainable and inclusive growth’ (the ‘Europe 2020 strategy’) the Commission
emphasised the need to develop favourable conditions for investment in knowledge and
innovation so as to achieve smart, sustainable and inclusive growth in the Union. Both
the European Parliament and the Council have endorsed this strategy.
(2) Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3)
established Horizon 2020 – The Framework Programme for Research and Innovation
(2014-2020) (‘Horizon 2020’). Horizon 2020 aims at achieving a greater impact with
respect to research and innovation by contributing to the strengthening of public-public
partnerships, including through Union participation in programmes undertaken by several
Member States in accordance with Article 185 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union.
(3) Public-public partnerships should aim to develop closer synergies, increase
coordination and avoid unnecessary duplication with Union, international, national and
regional research programmes, and should fully respect the Horizon 2020 general
principles, in particular those relating to openness and transparency. Moreover, open
access to scientific publications should be ensured.
(4) By Decision No 743/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (4),
the Community decided to make a financial contribution to Eurostars, a joint research
and development programme undertaken by all Member States and five participating
countries in the framework of Eureka, an intergovernmental initiative established in 1985
with the objective of promoting cooperation in industrial research (‘Eurostars’).
(5) In April 2012, the Commission communicated to the European Parliament and the
Council a report on the interim evaluation of Eurostars carried out by a Group of
51
Independent Experts two years after the beginning of the programme. The overall
opinion of the experts was that Eurostars meets its objectives, adds value to European
research and development performing small and medium-sized enterprises (‘SMEs’) and
should be continued after 2013. Eurostars is also considered to meet a number of
genuine needs of SMEs engaged in research and development; it has attracted a large
number of applications, with the budget for projects eligible for funding exceeding the
initial budget. A number of recommendations for improvement were made, mainly
addressing the need of further integration of national programmes and improvements in
the operational performance in order to reach shorter time-to-contract and more
transparency in the procedures.
(6) The definition of SME provided for in Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC
of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (5)
should apply.
(7) In accordance with Council Decision 2013/743/EU (6), support may be provided to
an action building on Eurostars and reorienting it along the lines stated in its interim
evaluation.
(8) The second Research and Development Programme jointly undertaken by several
Member States aimed at supporting research and development performing small and
medium-sized enterprises (‘Eurostars-2’), aligned with the Europe 2020 strategy, its
flagship initiative ‘Innovation Union’ and the Commission Communication of 17 July 2012
entitled ‘A Reinforced European Research Area Partnership for Excellence and Growth’,
will aim to supporting research and development performing SMEs by co-financing their
market oriented research projects in any field. As such, and in combination with the
activities under the ‘Leadership in Enabling and Industrial Technologies’ objective set out
in Horizon 2020, it will contribute to the goals of the Industrial Leadership part of that
programme to speed-up development of the technologies and innovations that will
underpin tomorrow’s businesses and help innovative European SMEs to grow into world-
leading companies. As part of the improvements from the previous Eurostars
programme, Eurostars-2 should head towards shorter time-to-grant, stronger integration
and lean, transparent and more efficient administration to the ultimate benefit of
research and development performing SMEs. To keep the bottom-up nature and the
business-driven agenda with its main focus on market potential from the previous
Eurostars programme is key to the success of Eurostars-2.
(9) In order to take into account the duration of Horizon 2020, calls for proposals
under Eurostars-2 should be launched at the latest by 31 December 2020. In duly
justified cases calls for proposals may be launched by 31 December 2021.
(10) The Eureka Ministerial Conference on 22 June 2012 in Budapest endorsed a
strategic vision for Eurostars-2 (‘Budapest Document’). The ministers committed to
support the continuation of Eurostars after its termination in 2013 for the period covered
by Horizon 2020. This will consist of a reinforced partnership addressing the
recommendations of the interim evaluation of Eurostars. The Budapest Document sets
out two main objectives for Eurostars-2. Firstly, a structural-oriented objective to deepen
the synchronisation and alignment of the national research programmes in the field of
funding, which is a central element towards the realisation of the European Research
Area by the member countries. Secondly a content-related objective to support research
and development performing SMEs engaging in transnational research and innovation
projects. The Budapest Document invites the Union to participate in Eurostars-2.
(11) For the purpose of simplification, administrative burdens should be reduced for all
parties. Double audits and disproportionate documentation and reporting should be
avoided. When audits are conducted, the specificities of the national programmes should
be taken into account, as appropriate.
52
(12) Audits of recipients of Union funds provided under Eurostars-2 should be carried
out in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013.
(13) The Participating States intend to contribute to the implementation of Eurostars-2
during the period covered by Eurostars-2 (2014-2024).
(14) Eurostars-2 activities should be in line with the objectives and bottom-up
principles of Horizon 2020 and with the general principles and conditions laid down in
Article 26 of Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013.
(15) A ceiling should be established for the Union’s financial contribution to Eurostars-2
for the duration of the Horizon 2020. Within the limits of that ceiling, there should be
flexibility regarding the Union’s contribution, which should be at least one third but no
more than half of the contribution of the Participating States in order to ensure a critical
mass necessary to satisfy the demand from projects eligible for financial support, to
achieve a high leverage effect and ensure stronger integration of national research
programmes of the Participating States.
(16) In accordance with the objectives of Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013, any Member
State and any country associated to Horizon 2020 should be entitled to participate in
Eurostars-2.
(17) Any Eureka Member or country associated to Eureka that is not a Member State
or a country associated to Horizon 2020 may become a Eurostars-2 partner country.
(18) The Union’s financial contribution should be subject to formal commitments from
the Participating States to contribute to the implementation of Eurostars-2 and to the
fulfilment of those commitments. Financial support under Eurostars-2 should mainly take
the form of grants to projects selected following calls for proposals launched under
Eurostars-2. In order to meet the objectives of Eurostars-2, the Participating States shall
ensure sufficient financial contributions to fund a reasonable number of proposals
selected through each call.
(19) The joint implementation of Eurostars-2 requires an implementation structure.
The Participating States have agreed on designating the Eureka Secretariat (‘ESE’) as the
implementation structure for Eurostars-2. ESE is an international non-profit association
established under Belgian law in 1997 by the Eureka countries and, since 2008, is
responsible for the implementation of Eurostars. ESE’s role goes beyond the
implementation of Eurostars, being at the same time the secretariat of the Eureka
initiative, with its own governance linked to the management of Eureka projects outside
of Eurostars. The Union, represented by the Commission, is a founding member of the
Eureka initiative and full member of the Eureka Secretariat association.
(20) In order to achieve the objectives of Eurostars-2, ESE should be in charge of the
organisation of the calls for proposals, the verification of the eligibility criteria, the peer-
review evaluation and the selection and the monitoring of projects, as well as the
allocation of the Union contribution. The evaluation of proposals should be performed
centrally by independent external experts under the responsibility of ESE following calls
for proposals. The projects’ ranking list should be binding for the Participating States as
regards the allocation of funding from the Union’s financial contribution and from
contribution from Participating States.
(21) Overall, Eurostars-2should demonstrate clear progress towards further alignment
and synchronisation of the national research and innovation programmes as a truly joint
programme featuring stronger scientific, management and financial synchronisation.
Stronger scientific integration should be achieved through the common definition and
implementation of activities and should ensure the excellence and the high impact of the
projects selected. Management integration should ensure further improvement of
53
operational excellence and accountability for the programme. Stronger financial
integration should be based on overall and yearly adequate financial contribution by the
States participating in Eurostars-2 and a high degree of national synchronisation. This
should be achieved through a progressive harmonisation of national funding rules.
(22) The Union’s financial contribution should be managed in accordance with the
principle of sound financial management and with the rules on indirect management set
out in Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the
Council (7) and Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 (8).
(23) In order to protect the Union’s financial interests, the Commission should have the
right to reduce, suspend or terminate the Union’s financial contribution if Eurostars-2 is
implemented inadequately, partially or late, or if the Participating States do not
contribute, or contribute partially or late, to the financing of Eurostars-2. Those rights
should be provided for in the delegation agreement to be concluded between the Union
and the ESE.
(24) Participation in indirect actions funded by Eurostars-2 is subject to Regulation
(EU) No 1290/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (9). However, due to
the specific operating needs of Eurostars-2, it is necessary to provide for derogations
from that Regulation in accordance with Article 1(3) of that Regulation.
(25) In order to facilitate the participation of SMEs which are more used to national
channels and which would otherwise carry out research activities only within their
national boundaries, the Eurostars-2 financial contribution should be provided in
accordance with the well-known rules of their national programmes and implemented
through a funding agreement directly administered by the national authorities, combining
Union funding with the corresponding national funding. A derogation should therefore be
made from Article 15(9), Articles 18(1), 23(1), (5) to (7), 28 to 34 of Regulation (EU) No
1290/2013.
(26) Calls for proposals by Eurostars-2 should also be published on the single portal for
participants as well as through other Horizon 2020 electronic means of dissemination
managed by the Commission.
(27) The Union’s financial interests should be protected by means of proportionate
measures throughout the expenditure cycle, including the prevention, detection and
investigation of irregularities, the recovery of funds lost, wrongly paid or incorrectly used
and, where appropriate, administrative and financial penalties in accordance with
Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012.
(28) The Commission, in cooperation with the Participating States, should conduct an
interim evaluation assessing in particular the quality and efficiency of Eurostars-2 and
progress towards the objectives set, as well as a final evaluation and prepare a report on
those evaluations.
(29) Upon request from the Commission, ESE and the Participating States should
submit any information which the Commission needs to include in the reports on the
evaluation of Eurostars-2.
(30) Since the objectives of this Decision, namely to support transnational research
activities performed by research-intensive SMEs and to contribute to the integration,
alignment and synchronisation of national research funding programmes cannot be
sufficiently achieved by the Member States due to lack of transnational dimension and of
complementarity and interoperability of national programmes but can rather, by reason
of the scale and impact of the action, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may
adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of
54
the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set
out in that Article, this Decision does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve
those objectives,
HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
Subject matter
This Decision lays down rules on the participation of the Union in the second Research
and Development Programme jointly undertaken by several Member States aimed at
supporting research and development performing small and medium-sized enterprises
(‘Eurostars-2’) and the conditions for its participation.
Article 2
Definitions
For the purpose of this Decision the following definitions apply:
(1) ‘SME’ means a micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises, as defined in
Recommendation 2003/361/EC;
(2) ‘research and development performing SME’ means an SME which meets at least
one of the following conditions:
(a) reinvests at least 10 % of its turnover to research and development activities;
(b) dedicates at least 10 % of its full-time equivalents to research and development
activities;
(c) has at least five full-time equivalents (for SME with no more than 100 full-time
equivalents) for research and development activities; or
(d) has 10 full-time equivalents (for SME with over 100 full-time equivalents) for
research and development activities.
Article 3
Objectives
Eurostars-2 shall pursue the following objectives:
(1) promote research activities that comply with the following conditions:
(a) the activities are carried out by transnational collaboration of research- and
development performing SMEs among themselves or including other actors of the
innovation chain (e.g. universities, research organisations);
(b) results of activities are expected to be introduced into the market within two years
of the completion of an activity;
(2) increase the accessibility, efficiency and efficacy of public funding for SMEs in
Europe by aligning, harmonising and synchronising the national funding mechanisms of
Participating States;
55
(3) promote and increase the participation of SMEs without previous experience in
transnational research.
Article 4
Participation in and partnership with Eurostars-2
1. The Union shall participate in Eurostars-2 jointly undertaken by Austria, Belgium,
Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France,
Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia,
Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and the United Kingdom, (the
"Participating States"), in accordance with the conditions laid down in this Decision.
2. Any Member State other than those listed in paragraph 1 and any other country
associated to Horizon 2020 may participate in Eurostars-2 provided it fulfils the condition
laid down in point (c) of Article 6(1) of this Decision. If it fulfils the condition laid down in
point (c) of Article 6(1), it shall be regarded as a Participating State for the purposes of
this Decision.
3. Any Eureka Member or country associated to Eureka that is not a Member State or a
country associated to Horizon 2020 may become a Eurostars-2 partner country provided
it fulfils the condition set out in point (c) of Article 6(1). Those Eureka Members or
countries associated to Eureka that fulfil the condition laid down in point (c) of Article
6(1), shall be regarded as partner countries for the purposes of this Decision. Legal
entities from those partner countries shall not be eligible for the Union’s financial
contribution under Eurostars-2.
Article 5
Union’s financial contribution
1. The Union financial contribution, including EFTA appropriations, to Eurostars-2 shall
be up to EUR 287 000 000. The Union’s financial contribution shall be paid from the
appropriations in the general budget of the Union allocated to the relevant parts of the
Specific Programme, implementing Horizon 2020, established by Decision 2013/743/EU,
in accordance with point (c)(vi) of Article 58(1), and Articles 60 and 61 of Regulation
(EU, Euratom) No 966/2012, and in particular from appropriations under the heading
"Innovation in SMEs" under Part II.
2. Without exceeding the amount laid down in paragraph 1, the Union’s contribution
shall be at least one third of the contributions of the Participating States referred to in
point (a) of Article 7(1). It shall cover operational costs, including the costs of the
evaluation of proposals, and administrative costs. Where during the lifetime of Eurostars-
2 the rate of the Union’s contribution needs to be adapted, the Union’s contribution may
go up to a maximum of half of the contributions of the Participating States referred to in
point (a) of Article 7(1).
3. An amount not exceeding 4 % of the Union’s financial contribution referred to in
paragraph 1 may be used to contribute to the administrative costs of Eurostars-2.
Participating States shall cover the national administrative costs necessary for the
implementation of Eurostars-2.
Article 6
Conditions for the Union’s financial contribution
1. The Union’s financial contribution shall be conditional upon the following:
56
(a) the demonstration by the Participating States that they have set up Eurostars-2 in
accordance with the objectives laid down in Article 3;
(b) the designation by the Participating States or organisations designated by
Participating States, of the ESE, as the structure responsible for implementing Eurostars-
2 and for receiving, allocating and monitoring the Union’s financial contribution;
(c) the commitment by each Participating State to contribute to the financing of
Eurostars-2;
(d) the demonstration by ESE of its capacity to implement Eurostars-2, including
receiving, allocating and monitoring the Union’s financial contribution, in the framework
of indirect management of the Union budget in accordance with Articles 58, 60 and 61 of
Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012; and
(e) the establishment of a governance model for Eurostars-2 in accordance with
Annex II.
2. During the implementation of Eurostars-2, the Union’s financial contribution shall also
be conditional upon:
(a) the implementation by the ESE of Eurostars-2’s objectives set out in Article 3 and
activities set out in Annex I, in accordance with the rules for participation and
dissemination referred to in Article 8;
(b) the maintenance of an appropriate and efficient governance model in accordance
with Annex II;
(c) compliance by ESE with the reporting requirements set out in Article 60(5) of
Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012;
(d) the effective payment by the Participating States of the financial contribution to all
participants in Eurostars-2 projects selected for funding following the calls for proposals
launched under Eurostars-2, fulfilling the commitments referred to in point (c) of
paragraph 1 of this Article;
(e) allocation of the funding from the national budgets for Eurostars-2 projects and
the Union’s financial contribution in accordance with the ranking lists of the projects; and
(f) the demonstration of clear progress in the scientific, managerial and financial
cooperation by the establishment of minimum operational performance targets and
milestones for the implementation of Eurostars-2.
Article 7
Contribution from Participating States
1. Contribution from the Participating States shall consist of the following financial
contributions:
(a) co-financing of the selected Eurostars-2 projects through relevant national forms
of funding, mainly through grants. The Commission may use the established grant
equivalence rules for the valuation of the contributions from the Participating States in
forms other than grants;
(b) financial contribution to the administrative costs of Eurostars-2 not covered by the
Union contribution as set out in Article 5(3).
57
2. Each Participating State shall designate a National Funding Body (NFB) to administer
financial support to the national participants in Eurostars-2 in accordance with Article 8.
Article 8
Rules for participation and dissemination
1. For the purposes of Regulation (EU) No 1290/2013, the ESE shall be considered to be
a funding body.
2. By way of derogation from Article 15(9) of Regulation (EU) No 1290/2013, the NFBs,
under the coordination of the ESE, shall verify the financial capacity of all applicants for
funding under Eurostars-2.
3. By way of derogation from Article 18(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1290/2013, grant
agreements with beneficiaries of indirect actions under Eurostars-2 shall be signed by the
NFBs concerned.
4. By way of derogation from Article 23(1), (5), (6) and (7) and Articles 28 to 34 of
Regulation (EU) No 1290/2013, the funding rules of the participating national
programmes shall apply to Eurostars-2 grants administered by the NFBs.
Article 9
Implementation of Eurostars-2
1. Eurostars-2 shall be implemented on the basis of annual work plans.
2. Eurostars-2 shall provide financial support mainly in the form of grants to
participants following calls for proposals.
Article 10
Agreements between the Union and the ESE
1. Subject to a positive ex-ante assessment of the ESE in accordance with Article 61(1)
of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012, the Commission, on behalf of the Union, shall
conclude a delegation agreement and annual transfer of funds agreements with the ESE.
2. The delegation agreement referred to in paragraph 1 shall be concluded in
accordance with Article 58(3) and Articles 60 and 61 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No
966/2012, and in accordance with Article 40 of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012.
It shall also set out the following:
(a) the requirements for the ESE regarding the performance indicators set out in
Annex II to Decision 2013/743/EU;
(b) the requirements for the ESE’s contribution to the monitoring referred to in Annex
III to Decision 2013/743/EU;
(c) specific performance indicators for the functioning of the ESE in respect of
Eurostars-2;
(d) requirements for the ESE regarding the provision of information on administrative
costs and of detailed figures concerning the implementation of Eurostars-2;
(e) arrangements regarding the provision of data necessary to ensure that the
Commission is able to meet its dissemination and reporting obligations;
58
(f) an obligation for the ESE to sign bilateral agreements with the NFBs before any
transfers of the Union’s financial contribution take place, such bilateral agreements laying
down the minimum operational performance targets and milestones for the
implementation of Eurostars-2;
(g) provisions for the publication of calls for proposals by Eurostars-2, in particular on
the single portal for participants, as well as through other Horizon 2020 electronic means
of dissemination managed by the Commission.
Article 11
Termination, reduction or suspension of the Union’s financial contribution
1. If Eurostars-2 is not implemented or is implemented inadequately, partially or late,
the Commission may terminate, proportionately reduce, or suspend the Union’s financial
contribution in line with the actual implementation of Eurostars-2.
2. If the Participating States do not contribute, contribute partially or late to the
financing of Eurostars-2, the Commission may terminate, proportionately reduce, or
suspend the Union’s financial contribution, taking into account the amount of funding
allocated by the Participating States to implement Eurostars-2.
Article 12
Ex-post audits
1. ESE shall ensure that ex-post audits of expenditure on indirect actions are carried out
by the respective NFBs in accordance with Article 29 of Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013.
2. The Commission may decide to carry out itself the audits referred to in paragraph 1.
In such cases, it shall do so in accordance with the applicable rules, in particular the
provisions of Regulations (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012, (EU) No 1290/2013 and (EU) No
1291/2013.
Article 13
Protection of the financial interests of the Union
1. The Commission shall take appropriate measures ensuring that, when actions
financed under this Decision are implemented, the financial interests of the Union are
protected by the application of preventive measures against fraud, corruption and any
other illegal activities, by effective checks and, if irregularities are detected, by the
recovery of the amounts wrongly paid and, where appropriate, by effective,
proportionate and dissuasive administrative and financial penalties.
2. The ESE shall grant Commission staff and other persons authorised by it, as well as
the Court of Auditors, access to its sites and premises and to all the information,
including information in electronic format, needed in order to conduct their audits.
3. The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) may carry out investigations, including on-
the-spot checks and inspections, in accordance with the provisions and procedures laid
down in Council Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96 (10) and Regulation (EU,
Euratom) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (11), with a view
to establishing whether there has been fraud, corruption or any other illegal activity
affecting the financial interests of the Union in connection with an agreement or decision
or a contract funded under this Decision.
59
4. Contracts, grant agreements and grant decisions resulting from the implementation
of this Decision shall contain provisions expressly empowering the Commission, the Court
of Auditors, OLAF and the ESE to conduct such audits and investigations, in accordance
with their respective competences.
5. In implementing Eurostars-2, the Participating States shall take the legislative,
regulatory, administrative or other measures necessary to protect the Union’s financial
interests, in particular to ensure full recovery of any amounts due to the Union in
accordance with Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 and Delegated Regulation (EU)
No 1268/2012.
Article 14
Communication of information
1. At the request of the Commission, the ESE shall send any information necessary for
the preparation of the reports referred to in Article 15.
2. The Participating States shall submit to the Commission, through the ESE, any
information requested by the European Parliament, the Council or the Court of Auditors
concerning the financial management of Eurostars-2.
3. The Commission shall include the information referred to in paragraph 2 of this
Article in the reports referred to in Article 15.
Article 15
Evaluation
1. By 30 June 2017, the Commission shall carry out, in close cooperation with the
Participating States and with the assistance of independent experts, an interim
evaluation of Eurostars-2. The Commission shall prepare a report on that evaluation
which includes the conclusions of the evaluation and observations by the Commission.
The Commission shall send that report to the European Parliament and to the Council by
31 December 2017. The result of the interim evaluation of Eurostars-2 shall be taken into
account in the interim evaluation of Horizon 2020.
2. At the end of the Union’s participation in Eurostars-2, but no later than 31 December
2022, the Commission shall conduct a final evaluation of Eurostars-2. The Commission
shall prepare a report on that evaluation which is to include results of that evaluation.
The Commission shall send that report to the European Parliament and to the Council.
Article 16
Entry into force
This Decision shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in
the Official Journal of the European Union.
Article 17
Addressees
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 15 May 2014.
For the European Parliament
60
The President
M. SCHULZ
For the Council
The President
D. KOURKOULAS
________________________________________
(1) Opinion of 10 December 2013 (not yet published in the Official Journal).
(2) Position of the European Parliament of 15 April 2014 (not yet published in the Official
Journal) and decision of the Council of 6 May 2014.
(3) Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11
December 2013 establishing Horizon 2020 — the Framework Programme for Research
and Innovation (2014-2020) and repealing Decision No 1982/2006/EC (OJ L 347,
20.12.2013, p. 104).
(4) Decision No 743/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July
2008 on the Community’s participation in a research and development programme
undertaken by several Member States aimed at supporting research and development
performing small and medium-sized enterprises (OJ L 201, 30.7.2008, p. 58).
(5) OJ L 124, 20.5.2003, p. 36.
(6) Council Decision 2013/743/EU of 3 December 2013 establishing the specific
programme implementing Horizon 2020 — the Framework Programme for Research and
Innovation (2014-2020) and repealing Decisions 2006/971/EC, 2006/972/EC,
2006/973/EC, 2006/974/EC and 2006/975/EC (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 965).
(7) Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the
Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ L 298,
26.10.2012, p. 1).
(8) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the
rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ L 362, 31.12.2012, p.
1).
(9) Regulation (EU) No 1290/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11
December 2013 laying down the rules for participation and dissemination in ‘Horizon
2020 — the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020)’ and
repealing Regulation (EC) No 1906/2006 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 81).
(10) Council Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96 of 11 November 1996 concerning on-
the-spot checks and inspections carried out by the Commission in order to protect the
European Communities’ financial interests against fraud and other irregularities (OJ L
292, 15.11.1996, p. 2).
(11) Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 11 September 2013 concerning investigations conducted by the European
Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European
Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999 (OJ L
248, 18.9.2013, p. 1).
61
________________________________________
ANNEX I
Implementation of Eurostars-2
1. The ESE shall organise continuously open calls for proposals, with cut-off
dates for the award of financial support to indirect actions.
2. Applicants shall submit project proposals to the ESE as a single entry point.
3. After the closure of a call for proposals, a central eligibility check shall be
carried out by the ESE on the basis of the eligibility criteria set out in the annual work
plan. No different or further eligibility criteria may be added by the Participating States.
4. The NFBs, under the coordination of the ESE, shall verify the financial
capacity of the participants according to common, clear and transparent rules.
5. Eligible proposals shall be evaluated centrally and ranked by a group of
external independent experts in accordance with the criteria set out in Article 15(1) of
Regulation (EU) No 1290/2013, on the basis of transparent procedures.
6. The ESE shall provide an evaluation review procedure in accordance with
Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1290/2013.
7. The ranking list, approved as a whole by the Eurostars-2 high-level group
referred to in Annex II, shall be binding for the allocation of funding from the national
budgets for Eurostars-2 projects.
8. Once the ranking list is approved, each Participating State shall finance its
national participants in those projects selected for funding through the designated NFB,
making all possible efforts to ensure that the top-50 ranked projects and at least 50 % to
75 % of the projects above thresholds are funded. The financial contribution to the
participants shall be calculated according to the funding rules of the national programme
of the relevant Eurostars-2 Participating State. The Union’s financial contribution shall be
transferred by the ESE to the NFBs provided that the NFBs have paid their financial
contribution to the projects.
9. All eligible participants in projects selected centrally shall be funded. The
granting of financial support by the NFBs to project participants selected centrally shall
be subject to the principles of equal treatment, transparency and co-funding.
10. The ESE shall be responsible for evaluating proposals, informing NFBs,
coordinating the synchronisation process, monitoring projects through project reporting
and audits carried out by NFBs, and reporting to the Commission ensuring a short time-
to-grant. It shall also take appropriate measures to encourage recognition of the Union’s
contribution to Eurostars-2, both to the programme itself and to individual projects. It
shall promote appropriate visibility for the Union’s contribution through the use of the
Horizon 2020 logo in all published material, including printed and electronic publications,
related to Eurostars-2.
11. ESE shall conclude Eurostars-2 bilateral agreements with the NFBs of
Participating States. Those Eurostars-2 bilateral agreements shall set out the
responsibilities of the contracting parties in accordance with the Eurostars-2 rules,
objectives and implementation modalities. The Eurostars-2 bilateral agreements shall
include the rules governing the transfer of the Union’s contribution and the minimum
operational targets and national progressive milestones for further integration and
synchronisation of national programmes, including a shorter time-to-grant in accordance
62
with Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 and Regulation (EU) No 1290/2013. Those
targets and milestones shall be agreed by the Eurostars-2 high-level group in
consultation with the Commission. The signature of the Eurostars-2 bilateral agreement
and compliance with the operational targets and milestones shall be a pre-condition for
NFBs to receive the Union’s contribution.
12. The ESE may conclude Eurostars-2 bilateral agreements with the NFBs of
partner countries. Those Eurostars-2 bilateral agreements shall set out the
responsibilities of the contracting parties in accordance with the Eurostars-2 rules,
objectives and implementation modalities, specify the conditions under which partnership
with Eurostars-2 shall take place, and include the minimum operational targets, including
a short time-to-grant.
13. Networking activities and exchange of best practices shall also be
organised amongst the Participating States in order to promote stronger integration at
scientific, managerial and financial level.
14. Other activities shall also include brokerage, programme promotion and
networking activities with other stakeholders (investors, research and innovation
providers, intermediaries) mainly to widen participation from beneficiaries in all
Participating States and to involve SMEs with no prior experience in transnational
research projects.
________________________________________
ANNEX II
Governance of Eurostars-2
1. The ESE shall manage Eurostars-2.
The Head of the ESE, as the legal representative of the ESE, shall be in charge of
implementing Eurostars-2 by:
(a) preparing the annual budget for the calls, central organisation of joint calls for
proposals and reception of the proposals as single entry point; the central organisation of
the eligibility and evaluation of proposals, according to common eligibility and evaluation
criteria, central organisation of the ranking and selection of proposals for funding, and
project monitoring and follow-up; the receipt, allocation and monitoring of the Union
contribution;
(b) collecting the necessary information from the NFBs for the transfer the Union
contribution;
(c) promoting Eurostars-2;
(d) reporting to the Eurostars-2 high-level group and the Commission on the
Eurostars-2 programme;
(e) informing the Eureka network about the activities of Eurostars-2;
(f) signing the delegation agreement with the Commission, the bilateral agreements
with the NFBs and the contracts with the experts assessing Eurostars-2 applications;
(g) adopting the Eurostars-2 annual work plan following the prior agreement of the
Eurostars-2 high-level group and of the Commission.
63
2. The Eurostars-2 high-level group, composed of the national
representatives in the Eureka High Level Group of the Eurostars-2 Participating States,
shall supervise the operations of the ESE on Eurostars-2 by:
(a) supervising the implementation of Eurostars-2;
(b) appointing the members of the Eurostars-2 Advisory Group (‘EAG’);
(c) approving the annual work plan;
(d) approving the ranking list of Eurostars-2 projects to be funded and taking the
award decision.
The Union, represented by the Commission, shall have the status of observer in the
Eurostars-2 high-level group. The Commission shall be invited to participate at the
meetings, shall receive all meeting documents and may take part in the discussion.
Any partner country shall have the right to send representatives to meetings of the
Eurostars-2 high-level group as observers.
3. The EAG shall be composed of Eureka National Project Coordinators
(persons in the national government or agency dealing with the operational level of the
management of Eureka/Eurostars programme and in charge of the promotion of
Eurostars-2 in the Participating States) from the Participating States. The Commission
and partner countries shall have the right to send representatives to the EAG meetings
as observers. The EAG meetings shall be chaired by the ESE.
The EAG shall advise the ESE and the Eurostars-2 high-level group on the arrangements
for the implementation of Eurostars-2.
4. The NFB shall be in charge of the administration of financial support to the
national participants.
64
ANNEX 2: MANDATE OF THE INTERIM EVALUATION EXPERT
GROUP
The interim evaluation shall be carried out by the Commission in accordance with article
15 of the Eurostars-2 Decision22. The evaluation will start by finding out how the situation
has evolved since the Programme began and how the Programme has been
implemented. The interim evaluation should examine the Eurostars-2 Joint Programme at
programme and project's level. For the project level assessment of the impact of the
Eurostars-1 ended projects will be taken into account as well. Special emphasis will be
put on the implementation and the economic impact of the programme and if the original
objectives of the Programme and their evolvement in its first two-years of
implementation. The evaluation shall also audit the governance of the programme and
access its evolution in particular as far as its impact in the market is concerned.
The results of the interim evaluation of Eurostars-2 Joint Programme will be included in
the Horizon 2020 Interim Evaluation.
Terms of Reference are as follows:
Purpose and Scope
The purpose of the Expert Group ("the Group") is to assist the European Commission in
carrying out the interim evaluation of Eurostars-2 Joint programme.
The Group is required to prepare a report and to make recommendations based on
available relevant evidence, covering all aspects of the interim evaluation as set out in
the legal basis (see Annex 1) and respecting the better regulation Guidelines on
evaluation.
The Group will synthesise the information included in wide range of inputs studies (both
horizontal and thematic) together with other relevant documents to be provided by the
Commission. These documents comprising the evidence-based will be structured
according to the five main evaluation criteria and related evaluation questions prescribed
by the Better regulation guidelines in order to ensure a coherent approach and to
facilitate the aggregation of information.
The evaluation should provide comprehensive answers to the following five main
evaluation criteria and accompanying evaluation questions:
a) Relevance and appropriateness:
To what extent is the Eurostars-2 Joint Programme relevant with respect to the
demands of the involved Participating States and of the beneficiaries? Do the
objectives still correspond to the needs of the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme?
To what extent is Eurostars-2 appropriate to support the realization of the EU policy
objectives especially ERA, Innovation Union, the three "O", thematic sector policies
including 'Innovation in SMEs'?
22 According to Article 15 (1) of Eurostars-2 Decision "by 30 June 2017, the Commission shall carry out, in close
cooperation with the Participating States and with assistance of independent experts, an interim evaluation of Eurostars-2. The results of the interim evaluation shall be presented to the European Parliament and the Council by 31 December 2017."
65
b) Efficiency and use of resources:
a. Efficiency with respect to the specific and operational objectives of the initiative as
laid down in its basic act [Decision No 553/2014/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 14 May 2014] and the corresponding Impact Assessment
(IA), including:
a.1. Progress made towards achievement of the following specific objectives:
- Promotion of transnational market-oriented research activities for R&D
performing SMEs in any field, leading to the introduction of new or
improved products, processes or services in the market by the participating
SMEs;
- Contribution to the completion of the ERA and increasing the accessibility,
efficiency and efficacy of public funding for R&D performing SMEs in Europe
by aligning, harmonising and synchronising the national funding
mechanisms.
a.2. Progress made towards achievement of the following operational objectives
taking into consideration the indicators and targets as mentioned in Chapter 8
of the IA:
- Three years after the end of each project, for each 1 M€ of public funding
(from EU and participating Eurostars countries), on average, the turnover
of the participants should increase by at least 10M€, at least 25 new jobs
should be created and three new or improved products, processes or
services should be on the market;
- Scientific integration of national programmes: Ensure excellence and
impact of the projects selected through international (EUREKA initiative)
competition and the application of a single evaluation and selection
process;
- Management integration of national programmes: Further improve
operational excellence and accountability for the programme by reducing
the time to contract while maintaining an optimal frequency of calls per
year;
- Financial integration of national programmes: Harmonisation of national
funding rules and application of a binding ranking list;
- Facilitate the participation of R&D performing SMEs without previous
experience in transnational R&D activities.
b. Efficiency with respect to the implementation structures of Eurostars-2,
including
b.1. How efficient is the programme implementation by ESE in collaboration
with the National Funding Bodies. What were its main limitations in
relation to National Funding Bodies (NFBs) during the execution of the
Programme? What could be the lessons learnt for the future?
b.3. What resources are needed at the different levels (Commission services,
Participating States and their NFBs) for the preparation and
implementation of the initiative? Are these justified by the scale and
scope of the initiative?
c. Efficiency with respect to Eurostars-2 as an instrument to foster transnational
R&D cooperation within Europe, including:
c.1. To what extent has Eurostars-2 been cost-effective? Were the costs
involved justified, given the changes/effects which have been achieved? Is
the operational performance of EUREKA/ESE and its role proportionate to its allocation of budget?
66
c.2. Is the initiative implemented in an efficient way? Have the management
aspects been properly addressed? Are effective monitoring and supervision
arrangements in place to ensure adequate monitoring of the initiative?
c.3. Has the initiative been implemented in accordance with the provisions of
the adopted work plans, budgets and the delegation agreement? Are the
reporting requirements, including audit provisions efficient?
d. What kind of approaches could be considered to generate further efficiency
gains?
c) Effectiveness:
What have been the (qualitative and quantitative) (expected) impacts of Eurostars-2 - At
programme and project levels, in particular:
At Programme level:
- To what extent is Eurostars-2 able to mobilize national and European funding
for R&D performing SMEs? How strong is the leverage effect from the Union
contribution? Is the programme sufficiently accessible, in particular for the
R&D performing SMEs? Are there identified "barriers to entry"?
- How does Eurostars-2 compare to the 'mainstream' EUREKA with regard to the
participation of SMEs, synchronisation of funding, type of projects etc.
- What's the efficiency of the mechanisms and tools ensuring the entry-into-the-
market of results/achievements of Eurostars-2 ended projects?
- To what extent are the (expected) impacts of Eurostars-2 in line with its
objectives?
At Project Level:
- How effectively are the projects managed by the participants?
- What are the main economic and social impacts for R&D performing SMEs
participating in Eurostars-2? What is the impact in terms of new
products/processes/services or significant improvement of existing ones? What
is the impact in terms of competitive position, company profile, employment,
qualification of staff, R&D investments and attitude towards transnational
collaboration?
- What is the added value for an R&D-performing SME to participate in
Eurostars-2 (i.e. what is the return on investment)? What is the motivation of
other participant types to participate? Do the benefits from participating
outweigh the costs?
- What improvements/modifications are proposed to enhance the participation
of SMEs to the programme and maximise the benefits they can get from their
participation?
- How are the SMEs using the IPR resulting from the project?
- Is the current project format (at least one R&D performing SME and another
partner from a different country) appropriate with regard to Eurostars-2
objectives?
- Does Eurostars-2 play an adequate role in promoting excellence in scientific
and technological research, development and demonstration in the considered
field and impact of the projects selected?
- Does Eurostars-2 play an adequate role in supporting innovation in the
considered field?
- Does Eurostars-2 play an adequate role in positioning Europe on the global
map of science and technology in research in the concerned field?
67
d) Coherence:
a. External coherence: To what extent is Eurostars-2 coherent with other EU-
level interventions which have similar objectives? What are the relations (i)
complementarity, (ii) synergies including with other funding programmes such
as the ESIF Regional Funds, collaborative projects were SMEs are participating
in the frame of bilateral S&T&I agreements between the Participating States
(iii) and potential overlaps (iv)?
b. Is the performance of Eurostars-2 in line with the spirit of Article 185 TFEU?
Are the procedures implemented at national level, coherent and aligned to
ensure the best performance of the Programme?
c. Internal coherence: How was the interaction between the different bodies
intervening in Eurostars-2 governance (EUREKA High Level Group (HLG),
Eurostars HLG, Eurostars-2 Advisory Group, EUREKA Secretariat, NPCs,
National Funding Bodies, European Commission)? Did their role evolve during
the execution of the programme? Did the role of the Commission change?
e) European Added Value23:
a. What is the additional value resulting from the EU intervention(s), compared
to what could be achieved by Member States at national, regional and/or local
levels?
b. What is the added-value of the Eurostars-2 Programme compared to other
forms of support to R&D&I in Horizon 2020 Framework programme (in
particular SME-Instrument, collaborative projects in the Thematic priorities of
LEITs and Societal Challenges, joint technology initiative, ERA-net)?
Any other question that the independent experts feel necessary to address for
accomplishing their task can be added by the Group after consultation with the European
Commission.
23 Concerning the aspect of EU-added value, the findings of a currently on-going horizontal study dedicated to
analyzing the EU added value of FP interventions will be made available as input for the Group.
68
ANNEX 3: ANALYSIS OF IMPACT OF COMPLETED EUROSTARS-
1 PROJECTS
The scope of the study consisted in the 400 Eurostars-1 ended projects that have been
funded during the period 2008 – 2010 (i.e. from cut-off 1 to cut-off 5) and their impacts
on the market in terms of turnover generated, company growth, new market
development, increase of employees, innovation, sustainability, economic and social
impact, complementarities in terms of impacts with other Horizon 2020 initiatives in
particular SME Instrument Phase 2 projects and collaborative projects under the Societal
Challenges and Leadership in Enabling and Industrial Technologies.
In terms of the methodology implemented, three main tasks have been undertaken in
order to achieve the objectives of the study, namely: desk research, interviews and
results analysis.
First, desk research has been performed and included the following activities:
Literature review of policy documents and analysis of the policy papers and other
relevant policy literature mainly aimed to investigate specific aspects of the Eurostars-
1 programme such as: addressed needs, objectives, governance, funding mechanism,
monitoring setup;
Analysis of the contents and of the quality of project reporting questionnaires (Final
Report and Market Impact Report) and analysis of existing data concerning Eurostars-
1 implemented projects – mainly data extracted from the Final Reports and Market
Impact Reports and included in the Eurostars database, in order to identify eventual
data gaps, issues of data quality and possible data needs that may affect the results of
the impact evaluation.
Cross-checks of data declared by Eurostars-1 beneficiaries (in Final Reports, Market
Impact Reports and during the interviews performed within the current study) with
data extracted from Amadeus database.
Two series of interviews were successively conducted in the next phase of the study,
namely:
Short interviews with main partners (or, if not available, with other appointed
partners) aimed to construct an overview at programme level regarding projects’
completion and commercialisation of project results, the following questions being
addressed:
o When did the project end? (Please specify the date.);
o Have all the initially planned products / services / processes been
introduced in the market? (Yes/No. If yes, please specify the date. If no,
why?).
In-depth interviews with main partners from a representative sample of 30 projects
which allowed the Research Team to collect detailed information regarding: added
value of the participation in Eurostars-1, success and hampering factors for achieving
the project results, potential areas of improvement.
The last task consisting in the results analysis focused first on constructing at programme
level the profile of submitted and approved applications, implemented projects and
corresponding beneficiaries. Descriptive statistics have been created reflecting the
following dimensions: distribution by cut-off, size and structure of the consortia,
69
geographical distribution, EU commitment, distribution by technological area addressed
by the projects.
Secondly, the assessment of impacts of Eurostars-1 projects was performed based on
three types of analyses:
An analysis at commercial level aimed at measuring the effectiveness of the
Eurostars-1 projects, in terms of: (1) achievement of the expected results (i.e.
developing a product/process/service) and (2) effectiveness in introducing a
product/process/service in the market;
An analysis at beneficiary level focused on the impacts deriving from the participation
in the programme in terms of company growth, jobs created and profitability of the
investment.
An in-depth analysis has been performed on a representative sample of 30 projects in
order to investigate topics such as: reasons for applying, previous experience and
collaboration with project partners, project results and benefits on the beneficiaries,
sustainability of project benefits and results, hampering and fostering factors for
introducing the project results in the market.
The study consisted also in identifying complementarities of the Eurostars-1 programme
with other Horizon 2020 initiatives through both desk research and interviews.
In terms of findings, the quality analysis of available data first focused on the design of
the Final Report and Market Impact Report which reflect the projects and beneficiaries’
achievements at project completion, respectively, after the introduction of the developed
products, processes or services in the market.
The following main findings emerged: (1) some general and/or unclear questions partially
useful for monitoring are included in the reports; (2) insufficient information is requested
for monitoring innovation created; (3) some requested economic indicators are not
related to the impact of the programme; (4) insufficient information is requested on the
project return on investment.
The second phase of quality analysis of available data continued with the assessment of
the accuracy of the Eurostars Database. Some inconsistencies and missing information
were identified, such as: (1) information related to the participants’ role within the
project (leading or partner) and to the situation monitoring (project withdrawn or
completed) was in some cases different in various spreadsheets; (2) even if the Final
Report form was sent for completion to all Eurostars participants, only 88% of them
provided the required data, some of them only partially; (3) impacts on economic
indicators, prior and after project completion, can be estimated for 23% of the total
number of beneficiaries, as only them submitted complete data both for Final Report and
Market Impact Report; (4) the data reported for some economic indicators contain
several typos, resulting in severe misunderstandings; (5) the database does not contain
information about the number and type of planned products, only related to the launch of
products and the code of products is different in each spreadsheet, the status regarding
the market launch couldn’t be tracked.
Considering the above-listed findings on the accuracy of the Eurostars Database which
resulted from an analysis of internal logic of data, the Research Team decided to perform
further checks with the company data available in Amadeus. Checks on the ‘annual
turnover’ and ‘the number of employees’ were performed. In more than 50% of cases
the deviations were higher than 10%, a lower turnover and a higher number of
employees, respectively, being declared by the main partners in the Final Report.
70
The accuracy of data included in the Eurostars Database regarding (1) the end-date of
the projects and (2) the date of market introduction of developed
products/processes/services was also checked based on short interviews aimed to involve
main partners of all analysed projects. Only 16% of the main partners were available to
participate in the interviews. In 60% of the cases, differences (from 1 month to 2 years)
regarding the end-date of the projects were declared.
Regarding the submitted and approved applications, only 27.4% of the submitted ones
were approved. The success rate of applications submitted decreased from the 1st to the
5th cut-off. The trend in terms of accepted beneficiaries mirrors the accepted projects.
The number of approved beneficiaries was stable only during the first three cut-offs, and
then decreased during the 4th and 5th calls. Small (i.e. with 2 or 3 participants) and large
consortia (i.e. with a number of participants greater than 5) registered similar success
rates.
The involvement of universities and research institutes did not prove to have a positive
contribution to the approval of the applications; the highest success rates corresponded
to consortia with only R&D SMEs, with a higher number of R&D SMEs, and with main
partners located in the UK, France and Sweden. However, in terms of nominal values,
France, Spain, Sweden and Germany had the highest number of selected applications; in
fact, these were the countries with the highest number of submitted applications. As
regards all project partners, the highest success rates were achieved by applications with
partners located in Switzerland, France and Sweden, while in nominal values, Germany,
France and Spain had the highest number of submitted and selected applications.
Regarding the implemented projects, out of the 400 applications approved, only 370
projects have been implemented, the remaining 30 projects being withdrawn. However,
the lower number of projects implemented during the 4th and 5th cut-offs is correlated
with the success rates registered during the selection process, and not with the
withdrawals. The highest number of withdrawals is related to the 2nd cut-off.
Out of the total approved applicants 11% decided to withdraw from the programme;
some were related to the 30 withdrawn projects, but also to other implemented projects.
The 370 projects were implemented by 1,197 beneficiaries. The size of the consortium
varied between only 2 project partners to up to 9 project partners, the majority of the
projects having either 2 or 3 partners.
Given the nature of the programme, the highest number of participants was represented
by R&D SMEs; however, an important number of universities, research institutes, SMEs
and large companies participated in the programme. In particular, in 33% of the cases,
the consortia were formed only by R&D SMEs, while in 67% of the cases, other types of
institutions were also involved. A high number of main partners were located in France,
followed by Sweden, Spain, Germany and the UK. On the other hand, when discussing
about all project partners, the hierarchy is dominated by Germany, followed by France,
Spain, Sweden and Italy.
Within the analysed cut-offs, EUR 59.8 million were committed from EU funds to the
project implementation. Both the total EU commitment and the average EU commitment
per project were decreased towards the last cut-offs.
Eurostars projects can address any technological area for any market, but must have a
civilian purpose and be aimed at the development of a new product, process or service.
Considering the first 5 cut-offs, 86% of the projects addressed three technological areas,
namely ICT, Biotech, and Industrial.
The commercial analysis revealed that 88% of the analysed projects developed the
planned products/processes/services. Around 50% of them were coordinated by R&D
performing SMEs based in France, Spain, Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands. The
71
successful projects cover all the technological areas. However, 73% of them refer to ICT,
Industrial and Biotech.
Moreover, 82% of these projects succeeded in introducing the results in the market. The
success rate was higher among the projects funded under the first three calls, having
smaller consortia including R&D SMEs plus other types of beneficiaries and addressing
Environment, ICT and Industrial technological areas.
The analysis at beneficiary level highlighted that SMEs that implemented successful
projects in terms of commercialising the project results appear to have higher annual
turnover, earnings and number of employees, and a lower annual investment in R&D
than the other SMEs. In addition, over the monitoring period, they benefited from a
higher growth of the turnover and earnings and they faced a lower increase of the
investment in R&D. As a general highlight of a study, the projects for which data are
available showed a limited profitability of the investment undertaken.
The in-depth analysis of 30 randomly selected projects indicated no significant
differences between beneficiaries with successful and not successful projects in
commercialising the projects’ results in terms of:
reasons for applying to Eurostars-1 programme (i.a. access to funding, entering new
markets, development of internal capabilities, creation of long-term partnerships);
previous experience in R&D activities, most of them declaring that are experienced;
collaboration with project partners, most of them declaring smooth collaboration
during the project implementation;
project benefits, main declared benefits referring to knowledge, network, reputation,
competitive position and internationalisation;
sustainability of project benefits and results, most of them declaring they are still
active in the market and involved in R&D activities;
hampering (i.a. political financial, technical, administrative) and fostering factors (i.a.
created partnership, market knowledge, successful research results) for introducing
the project results in the market.
The main conclusions revealed by the performed analyses are presented below:
The data collection mechanism (i.e. design and content of FiR and MIR) in place for the first five
cut-offs of the Eurostars-1 significantly limits the monitoring and the measurement of the performance and impacts attributable to the Eurostars projects as:
- FiR and MIR contains information related to the evolution of the overall financial situation of the beneficiaries. However this is not directly attributable to the participation in Eurostars;
- the design of the FiR and MIR did not differentiate between types of beneficiaries in order to adapt the data collected to the type of beneficiary (i.e. currently universities have to declare the
turnover achieved); - the data collected from beneficiaries and included in FiR and MIR did not allow the
identification and monitoring of individual products/services/processes that were planned and that have been developed/planned as well as the link between granted patent and products/services/processes cannot be deducted;
Reliability of data included in FiR and MIR is rather limited. All information are collected on a
declarative base and reliability and coherence of data is not ensured by an effective validation process:
- the method and type of documents used to collect and integrate data and information provided by the beneficiaries in FiRs and MIRs might have caused some inconsistencies and errors in the aggregated source, the Eurostars database (i.e. not updated information, contradictory data
72
included in different sections of the database), which could have been determined among others
by: the use of different units of measurement in reporting quantitative data, different understanding on the requested information, typing mistakes in transferring data from the
original document submitted by the beneficiary in the Eurostars database; - The Eurostars database contains information that appears non-consistent with data included in
other databases (e.g. Amadeus). In 70% of the cases, we found deviations higher than 10% for the declared “Turnover” and for the declared “Number of Employees”.
- discrepancies appeared during the cross-checks performed by the Research Team between different beneficiaries’ declarations (i.e. in some cases the declared end date and first commercialisation date corresponding to the Eurostars-1 projects differed between the Eurostars database and the phone interviews conducted within the study);
The submission of FiR and MIR and the completeness of data is not granted: only 21.5% of beneficiaries (i.e. 258 out of 1,197) have submitted completed reports, this allowed the analysis only of around 50% (i.e. 182 out of 370) of the completed projects. This might indicate the
reporting activity was perceived as optional by some beneficiaries.
Due to the reasons mentioned above (availability, reliability and usefulness of data), measuring the impacts of completed Eurostars project is currently not possible in a comprehensive manner. As a result, this study was based on a sample of 182 projects for which completed information was available from the main beneficiaries. Considering the projects for which data are available, most of the analysed projects (160 out of 182, representing 88% of them) were
successful in achieving project results (i.e. developing products/ services/ processes within the
project implementation period); moreover, a large part of them (131 out of 160, representing 82% of them) succeeded in commercialising the project results.
Consortia that managed the projects that successfully introduced a product/service/process in the market included SMEs that:
- have higher annual turnover and have benefited from a higher growth of the turnover
over the six-year period considered (including the implementation and post-
implementation phases); - have a lower annual investment in R&D as well as faced a lower increase of the investment in
R&D over the six years; - have higher annual earnings and they benefited from a higher increase in earnings (5%
compared to -4%), both in absolute value as well as in relative terms (i.e. as % of the turnover).
- have higher number of employees and created on average three new jobs after the project implementation. However, there is no difference concerning the percentage of employees
involved in R&D activities; in general SMEs that participated in Eurostars-1 projects allocated 42% of their FTEs to R&D activities with no significant variation before/after the completion of project activities.
Projects for which data are available showed a limited profitability of the investment undertaken. Data available indicated that on average a SME invested more than € 1.2 million and benefited from an additional turnover equal to € 682 thousand (i.e. less than 50% of the overall investment).
All interviewed beneficiaries consider the participation in the Eurostars-1 programme a positive experience and highlighted benefits in terms of knowledge, network, reputation, competitive position and internationalisation, as revealed by the in-depth analysis of 30 selected projects.
From the interviews with beneficiaries it emerged that the following factors foster the commercialisation of project results: access to funding for projects with a high-risk and strategic potential, well-established partnerships with a clear division of rights and responsibilities, initial maturity of the planned products/services/processes, market knowledge and strong strategy, support offered by ESE.
Some barriers existed in different phases of the Eurostars-1 programme, as perceived by the
beneficiaries, them mainly referring to the following:
- application phase: political (i.e. at National Project Coordinators level), financial (i.a. insufficient national funds), technical (i.a. disqualification of one project partner), administrative (i.a. different format of the application form applied at European and national level) and partner-related barriers (i.a. lack of experience in applying for European funds);
- project implementation: barriers regarding the project setup and management (i.e. importance given to different project activities, difficulties in coordination multiple partners),
financial, technical and administrative bottlenecks (i.a. differences between national granting procedures across EU Member States, unexpected extensive period of testing, administrative
73
burden existing at national level), R&D results not as expected, reduced support within the
participating organisations; - commercialisation phase: external (i.a. changes in the regulatory landscape), demand-
related (i.a. non-receptive European market), internal consortium (i.a. changes in the market strategy), market readiness of the project results, objective and project setup problems (i.a. insufficient funding foreseen).
The analysis was also aimed at providing concrete recommendations and any other useful comments on how to better implement the Eurostars-2 programme. Consequently, the following recommendations could be taken into account:
R1: Improving the data collection mechanism by:
- restructuring the project reporting questionnaires in order to collect information that would reflect the performance and impacts of the participation in the Eurostars programme and not
only the overall economic performance of the beneficiaries and tailoring the requested information per type of beneficiary (i.a. requesting specific information in order to clearly understand if the commercialisation took place or is expected to, requesting specific information about the gross earnings generated by the commercialisation of the project results, not asking
universities about turnover generated, inquire about types of investments undertaken); - creating a system of associating unique IDs to each planned product /service /process in order
to be possible to identify which of them have been developed and commercialised, which
intellectual property rights are in place for each of them (i.a. granted patents); - linking the reimbursement of part of the granted funds to the submission of the projects reports
(FiR and MIR) in order to increase the number and completeness of submitted FiRs; - using different IT tools that would allow to restrict the completion of FiR and MIR to one
common predefined format for all beneficiaries and to automatically centralise the information declared by all beneficiaries;
R2: Improving the selection mechanism in order to financially support projects
having the greatest market potential in order to reduce the number of withdrawn
projects and increase the number of successful projects in terms of commercialisation
of products/processes/services. At project selection stage, maturity and potentiality of
the product/service to go to market within two years, according to thematic domain
and the market targeted, could be included as a selection criteria or could be judged
through a market readiness assessment.
R3: Making the financing of projects (or at least a percentage) dependent on
introduction to market in order to incentivise beneficiaries to commercialise the
project results and to dis-incentivise to withdraw from the project.
R4: Increasing the rigorousness of the monitoring mechanism by:
- checking the data and information declared by the beneficiaries through various non-declarative methods (i.a. by cross-checking the declared financial data with other sources like Amadeus or financial situations submitted to national authorities, requesting supporting documents that could justify the declared data and information, by performing random audits at least for the qualification criteria);
- asking clarifications for the observed outliers; - developing a continuous communication with Eurostars-1 beneficiaries and incentivising them to
actively participate in the monitoring and reporting phase; - verifying and updating the Eurostars database as the FiR and MIR are received in order to
permanently have included in the database the last information and data available;
74
ANNEX 4: THE INTERIM EVALUATION EXPERT GROUP
Marcel Shaton Chair (Israel). From 1998 till 2015 Marcel Shaton has been the General
Manager of I.S.E.R.D. the Israeli Europe R & D Directorate. In this capacity he was
responsible in Israel of the implementation of the Framework Programs, the Eureka and
R&D binational European activities. He participated in various EU RTD Committees and
was the national NCP Coordinator. As such he led the Israeli Delegation for negotiations
on Israeli accession to the Framework Programs. From 1993 to 1998 he was a Minister
for Economic Affairs at the Mission of Israel to the European Communities in Brussels.
From 1985 to 1993 Marcel Shaton had various positions at the Foreign Trade
Administration, Ministry or Industry and Trade, Jerusalem up to Deputy Director of the
Foreign Trade Administration. Between 1980 and 1985 he was the Economic Counsellor
at the Permanent Mission of Israel to the United Nations in Geneva and IL representative
to GATT. Previously he worked as a coordinator for International Economic Affairs at the
Ministry of Finance and as a commodity trade analyst at the Trade Governmental
Administration, Ministry of Industry and Trade. Mr. Shaton holds a M.A. degree (Cum
Laude) in Political Science and a B.A. degree in Political Science and Economics, both
from the Hebrew University. He graduated from the Commercial Attaches course of the
Ministry of Industry and Trade.
Axel Lehmann, (Germany). Axel Lehmann is a Full Professor Emeritus of the Faculty for
Informatics at the Universität der Bundeswehr München, Germany, where he held a chair
for modelling and simulation until 2011. Besides his research activities as faculty
member, he is also Executive Director of the research Institute for Intelligent Systems
(IT IS) at his university. His major areas of research range from computer-based
modelling and simulation, knowledge-based diagnosis and decision support systems, to
serious games for education and training. He is former President of the Society for
Modeling and Simulation International (SCS), Fellow of the German Informatics Society
(GI), and of the Federation of Asian Simulation Societies (ASIASIM). He serves on
several editorial boards of journals, e.g. Japan Journal of Industrial and Applied
Mathematics (JSIAM), Telecommunication Systems – Modeling, Analysis, Design and
Management. He was and still is active as expert for various institutions, like for the
European Commission (FP6- and FP7-REGPOT, COST), for the Spanish Ministry of
Science and Innovation (Severo-Ochoa-Centers of Excellence), or for the Minister of
Science, Research and Arts in Baden-Württemberg, Germany (IT innovations).
Isella Vicini, (Italy). MSc Computing Science – University of Milan, 1986. (1986-1993)
Researcher at the Robotic Department of CNR (National Research Council) where she
coordinated and managed targeted activities of research project in ICT area. She is co-
author of more than 30 scientific papers published in national and international journals
and conference proceedings. (1993-2008) Project Manager in Think3 Inc. and responsible
for European projects management and administration. (2008-onwards) Warrant Group -
European Funding Division Director. Project Manager of HELM Project (FP7);
Dissemination Manager of EFEVE Project (FP7); Project Manager and Dissemination
Manager of NEWSPEC Project (FP7), Poseidon project (H2020), NANOCATHEDRAL Project
(H2020) and Partial PGM project (H2020); involved as project manager consultant in
other 18 running projects FP7, Life+, CIP, SME, FTI and H2020.
Eva Pando, (Spain). She is currently Managing Director of IDEPA, regional development
agency of Principality of Asturias. This organization has the role to improve the
competitiveness of Asturias companies through innovation, and internationalization, with
the goal of creation new jobs and richness in the region. Previously, for 10 years, she
was general manager in a Business Innovation Centre (CEEI ASTURIAS) dedicated to the
development of new based technology companies in the Principality of Asturias (Spain).
CEEI ASTURIAS depends from IDEPA. Previously she worked in the venture capital
market for 7 years. During this time she was dealing with two different tasks: the first as
investing director, and the second as investing department Coordinator. She was also
member of 13 boards of directors from participated companies during this period.
75
Currently she hold the position of vice president of the board of directors of ANCES
(Spanish Association of Business Innovation Centers), and she is member of the board of
directors of ASBAN, a business angels network.
Michele Cincera, Rapporteur (Belgium). Michele Cincera is Professor of Industrial
economics at the Solvay Brussels School of Economics and Management – Université
Libre de Bruxelles. Since 2012, he is the Director of the International Centre of
Innovation, Technology and Education Studies (iCite). In 2009-2010, he was visiting the
EC-JRC-IPTS as a senior scientist. His research interests embrace the quantitative
assessment at the micro-level of innovative and entrepreneurial activities, their
determinants and socio-economic impacts as well as the analysis of National Innovation
Systems and policies supporting science, research and innovation.
76
ANNEX 5: MID-TERM EVALUATION EUROSTARS-2 –
TASKFORCE REPORT
Introduction
The goal of the present report is the comparison between the initial Eurostars-2 targets
and the achievements at mid-term of the programme. The results shall demonstrate the
areas, where the targets have been fully or partially achieved and highlight areas, where
more effort is needed to fulfill all targets of Eurostars-2 until 2020. Further improvements
will be presented as well. The report also analyses arguments for a continuation of the
programme after 2020. The report is based on data from the EUREKA Secretariat and on
surveys carried out within the EUREKA High Level Group and actors having applied for
Eurostars-2.
Eurostars-2 is an initiative of the EUREKA member states and is co-financed by the EU in
accordance with article 185 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The
relevant targets of Eurostars-2 are formulated in the following documents:
2014-2020 Budapest Document, endorsed during the EUREKA Ministerial Conference
on 22 June 2012 in Budapest.
General Implementing Guidelines, for the Eurostars-2 programme endorsed by the
High Level Group in Ankara in June 2013.
Decision No 553/2014/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May
2014.
The targets for Eurostars-2 on political and operational level are summarised in the
following table:
Political targets of Eurostars-2 Operational targets of Eurostars-2
source target source Target
1,2,3 Stimulate economic growth and job creation by enhancing the compe-titiveness of R&D performing SME
Lean administration by deepening the synchronisation of the national funding programmes
Opening to Associated and non EU-Member EUREKA countries
1,2,3 Increased number of applications Balanced and flexible financing by
securing funding of the 50 highest rated projects and of the top 50 to 75% of the applications above threshold
7 months time to contract Market introduction 2 years after
project completion Enhanced promotion
2 Common programme evaluation including:
Impact assessment Synchronisation, communication
and management process
2 Introduce:
Online submission system Common financial viability method
standard Unique progress report Redress procedure
77
3 Favorable conditions for investment in knowledge and innovation
Greater impact with respect to research and innovation
Closer synergies, coordination and no unnecessary duplication
Participation of SMEs without previous experience in transnational research
Common programme evaluation
3 Low administrative burden, no double audits and reporting
Progressive harmonisation of national funding rules
Main observations on the programme implementation between 2014 and 2016
1. Achievements
1a Political achievements
European policy objectives
The HLG survey underlines that Eurostars-2 clearly contributes to the establishment of
the following European strategies mentioned in Decision No 553/2014/EU of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014:
The Europe 2020 strategy emphasises the need to develop favorable conditions for
investment in knowledge and innovation so as to achieve smart, sustainable and
inclusive growth in the Union. Eurostars-2 clearly contributes to the Europe 2020
strategy in SMEs due to its bottom-up nature, business-driven agenda, focus on
market and international dimension also beyond EU. Moreover Eurostars-2 facilitates
the participation of SMEs which are more used to national channels and is often the
first step towards internationalisation.
A ‘Reinforced European Research Area Partnership for Excellence and Growth’: by
reducing the fragmentation of the European research landscape through networking
between Member States and the European Commission and coordinating R&D
measures on programme and project level. Participating states and partner countries
agree that Eurostars-2 is one of the best examples for an ERA instrument as it brings
national and EU policies together.
Horizon 2020 aims at achieving a greater impact with respect to research and
innovation with its ‘Industrial Leadership pillar’, including its financial contribution to
Eurostars-2. By strengthening P2P partnerships the Union’s contribution to Eurostars-
2 has pushed participating states in their common effort to establish clear and
transparent procedures which are manageable for SMEs. As a result of the efficient
central evaluation and increased coordination of national programmes a high number
of high quality projects can be funded. At the same time Eurostars-2 avoids
duplication with Union, international, national and regional research programmes.
Funding policy objectives
Promotion of research activities: Eurostars-2 is designed to explicitly support
transnational collaboration of research- and development performing SMEs among
themselves or including other actors of the innovation chain. 71% of the applying
organisations are R&D performing SMEs and the most popular configuration is a
consortium of 2 R&D performing SMEs. The commercialisation of the developments is
continuously monitored during the project lifetime and also until 3 years after project
completion. The figures from Eurostars-1 are very convincing:
78
899 new products, processes and services reported, 693 of them were brought to
market
Median time to market for the first commercialisation 10 months
Promote and increase the participation of SMEs without previous experience in
transnational research
According to the participant survey launched in December 2016 27% of the participating
SMEs had no previous experience with international cooperation before applying for
Eurostars-2. Additionally 27% of webinar participants in 2016 had no international
experience. This demonstrates that this group is showing an increasing interest in
international R&D cooperation.
1b Opening Eurostars-2
Three out of the 36 Eurostars-2 countries are associated countries to EUREKA: South
Korea, South Africa and Canada. South Africa and Canada joined Eurostars-2 in March
2016 (starting from COD 6 in Eurostars-2). South Korea participates in Eurostars-2 from
the beginning. Furthermore, Switzerland as a full member of EUREKA was fully
associated to the EU only in 2107 but they participated in Eurostars-2 from the
beginning.
The associated countries and Switzerland fully participate in Eurostars-2 without
financially benefitting from the cooperation with the EU. Full participation means,
amongst others, following the Eurostars-2 common eligibility and evaluation rules and
respecting the international ranking list. Since these countries are neither EU member
states nor associated members states to Horizon 2020, they are not entitled to receive
top up from the EU nor can they benefit from the financial EU support in the evaluation
process. The countries pay a fee to the EUREKA secretariat to cover the costs of e.g. the
evaluation of the project proposals. The mechanism integrating countries, which are not
eligible to receive EU top up allows an opening of Eurostars to the world (via the
association to EUREKA) and to EUREKA member countries, who are not associated to
Horizon2020, like Russia and Liechtenstein.
The main reasons for those countries to participate in Eurostars-2 are:
Eurostars-2 provides opportunities for national SMEs to work on the best joint projects
with the best partners possible
Joining Eurostars-2 was a request of the national SMEs in order to be able to
cooperate with all EUREKA member states using all EUREKA instruments (EUREKA
network projects, Cluster projects and Eurostars projects).
Eurostars-2 fits the national policy to support SMEs becoming global players. In order
to realise this, engaging in collaborative activities with outstanding overseas
companies is required. Since Europe is a high-density region of enterprises with
innovation and technological capabilities, it is a good environment for the national
SMEs to induce innovation
The international cooperation through Eurostars-2 helps the national SMEs to
overcome the multiple differences in national technology-related legal systems and
technology environments through technology joint development, and to expand
together to new markets through open technology innovation.
79
2 Operational targets and achievements
1a) A balanced budget from the NFB and the European Commission to secure funding for
the top-50 projects of the projects above the threshold.
242 projects out of 250 from Cut-off 1 to Cut-off 5 have secured funding (overall, 92
% to 100 % of the top 50 projects have secured funding)24.
1b) A balanced budget from the NFB and the European Commission to secure
funding for 50-75% of the projects above the threshold
At programme level, the target has been reached with funding secured for 79 % to 100
% of the projects ranked above the threshold as a result of the effort of the participating
states and the partner countries to provide enough funding to support the projects.
24 One project ranked in top 50 projects from Cut-off 2 was withdrawn by all participants due to not having the necessary financial means to carry out their part of the project.
92 % 98 % 94 % 100 % 100 %
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Cut-off 1 Cut-off 2 Cut-off 3 Cut-off 4 Cut-off 5
Approved for funding Not funded Withdrawn by participants
83% 80%
90%
100%
79%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Cut-off 1 Cut-off 2 Cut-off 3 Cut-off 4 Cut-off 5
Overall results of the funding of the projects above the threshold
80
2a) Time-to-contract of 7 months or shorter on average by Cut-off
Time-to-contract is the time elapsed between the Cut-off date and the date of notification
of the grant decision from the NFB to the participant, or the date of signature of the
grant agreement.
Clear improvements of Time-to-contract can be observed in comparison to the first
Eurostars Programme (2008 – 2013) but also over the Eurostars-2 Cut-offs. The average
Time-to-contract in Eurostars-2 has decreased from 8,9 months in Cut-off 1 to 7,1
months in Cut-off 4 reaching the target of 7 months or shorter as set in Eurostars-2
Bilateral Agreement.
Some delays can be observed for the Cut-off 1 as NFBs were advised not to conclude any
grant decision/ agreement during the summer 2014, due to clarifications required for the
eligibility of the Union financial contribution. Other key structural reasons for delay for
the fist Cut-offs: for 4 NFBs, the Bilateral Agreement needed to be signed before any
grant decision could be finalised and 2 NFBs underwent a change in their national RDI
framework.
This aim could be reached among others because countries have accepted the English
Eurostars-2 application form in their national applications and others aligned their
national procedure to reach time- to-contract of 7 months
2b) High degree of national synchronisation
The aim of the national synchronisation is to allow the consortia to start with the project
as soon as possible and at the same time. By shortening the time to contract the national
synchronisation is fulfilled to a high degree as well, as for all participants in one project
the contracts are more or less signed at the same time. Thus a common project start is
enabled.
3a) A common financial viability methodology defined, based on a proposal
accepted by the National Implementation Group
The financial viability is defined by the capacity to finance the project development,
taking into account the potential access to public funds. The financial viability assessment
is not an eligibility criterion, therefore “negative” assessments do not result in the
ineligibility of a project. The verification of the financial capacity to carry out the
proposed project is an integral part of the evaluation stage and must be completed
before the Independent Evaluation Panel meeting. The idea behind this methodology is to
safeguard the public money not only in the country where there are doubts on financial
11.2
8.9 8.7 7.9
7.1
AverageEurostars 1 (2008-
2013)
Cut-off 1 Cut-off 2 Cut-off 3 Cut-off 4
Average Time to contract in months
81
capacity of one specific partner, but on the rest of the countries participating in the
project.
A common financial viability methodology has been defined and presented for a
discussion to the NIG in June 2016. It was agreed to the general principle of the financial
viability methodology. The proposal will be further finalised with the comments received
and the final financial viability methodology proposal will be presented to the NFBs
represented at the NIG during the next meeting in June 2017.
3b) A common reporting system accepted, based on a proposal accepted by the
National Implementation Group and taking into account national requirements
A Standard and unique common progress report in English was accepted by the NIG in
June 2016. The report aims to collect information on the level of each participant about
technical progress, the quality of cooperation in the project, deviations from the original
project plan and any other unforeseen changes in the implementation of the plan. The
new IT system is being developed for Eurostars-2, to ensure participants and NFBs use
an efficient online reporting mechanism ensuring that each participant’s data remains
available to the participants and their NFB. After the central implementation of the
common progress report in 2017, the ESE will monitor and support the implementation
on the national levels.
3a HLR survey and SWOT Analysis
In HLR survey a SWOT analysis on Eurostars-2 was included. The main results are
summarised in the graph below.
The large majority of the participating states and member countries are satisfied with the
programme. Eurostars-2 is regarded to be a very relevant programme. Often it is the
only SME funding programme or compared to other national funding programmes the
biggest one with respect to the funding.
82
The results underline the achievements mentioned above. Eurostars-2 has a highly
recognised European added value. With regard to the EU objectives Eurostars-2 is
consistent with them as it supports cross border operations of SMEs, decreases the
fragmentation of the ERA and is the best example for an ERA as it brings national and EU
policies together. By addressing intermediate TRL levels (4-6) Eurostars-2 is
complementary to EU programmes, especially the SME instrument.
The possibility for the project participants to cooperate internationally and with partners
beyond the EU allows access to international markets. Specifically for the SMEs it is often
the first step towards internationalisation.
The HLR have a strong interest to continue the joint programme. The strong and
long lasting commitment from participating states and partner countries and the
allocation of dedicated national budgets is a strength compared to other programmes.
The co-funding of the Commission is an incentive to agree on the central procedures and
accept the ranking list. Additionally it helps to make progress towards a
synchronised/harmonised programme. Also the leverage effect of a joint programme
should not be underestimated. The collaboration of participating states, partner countries
and the Commission enables us to support more SMEs than we can separately. In
addition the Eurostars-2 label raises the visibility of the funded SMEs.
However room for improvement is given e.g. with regard to the budget. In the beginning
of Eurostars-2 all participating states have committed themselves to participate in the
programme and to provide a certain budget. Due to several reasons like the economic
crisis some countries unfortunately cannot live up to their original financial commitments.
This sometimes causes problems in other countries, as they cannot spend their budget.
Eurostars-2 is not everywhere well known and some countries would like to receive more
applications with a higher quality. Compared to Eurostars 1 the administrative burden is
even higher under H2020. Specifically the requirements regarding audits, self-
assessment and ethics are considered to be too high.
83
3b Participant survey
With the participants survey no complete SWOT analysis was performed but it was asked
for the main strengths and weaknesses (see graph on the next page).
The participants often are of the same opinion as the HLRs. Eurostars-2 fits to their
needs, is being regarded to be easy, fast and compared to other programmes the
administrative burden is much lower. They appreciate the very good support at national
level and the transparency of the programme. The possibility to cooperate internationally
is a big advantage for them. The lack of budget in some countries leads to not funded
projects although they are above the threshold. Nevertheless Eurostars-2 has a high
success rate compared to other programmes. Again room for improvement is still given
and the participants request a better alignment between the central and national
processes.
In conclusion also the participants think that Eurostars-2 is a great programme for the
support of R&D in SMEs, more than two third of them will or would apply again and they
would welcome the continuation of Eurostars.
Strengths •Small projects, i.e. small number of partners (at least
two)
•Public funding rate
•Straightforward application process
•Bottom-up principle, with no thematic restriction
•Transparent, central evaluation with the feedback received
•National contact point (support received in national language, national funding contract/procedure, …)
•Possibility to cooperate internationally with a large number of members states, even outside European Union/Europe
•Fast evaluation and grant agreement signature
•Two Cut-off days per year
•Comprehensive feedback on the evaluation
•Success rate
Weaknesses •Dualism: Central evaluation and monitoring /
National contact point (national funding rules, reports, …)
•Process of selecting funded projects (e.g. some projects on the ranking list are not funded, because at least in one country the national budget is exhausted)
•Public funding rate (e.g. different rates in different countries)
•Success rate is too low
84
4) IMPROVEMENTS FOR EUROSTARS-2 2018-2020
The overall performance of the Eurostars-2 programme in the period 2014 - 2016 is
considered satisfactory, but some specific improvements to increase the scope of its
results are going to be implemented from now to 2020.
4a) Balanced participation of all countries
In terms of number of proposals
Some countries receive very few applications, making it difficult for them to fund as
many projects as expected, and globally the programme was designed to receiving more
applications.
The implementation of specific national roadshows, with the support of the EUREKA
Secretariat and with the cooperation of other countries more experienced in the
programme, and the general dissemination of the specificities of Eurostars-2 will
contribute to increase the number of applications. In addition, cooperation between
national and regional authorities will lead to a more effective knowledge of the
programme by the SMEs. With a targeted approach even more SMEs without previous
international experience could become involved in Eurostars-2 projects.
In terms of quality of the proposals
Certain countries receive a good number of applications, but the quality is not that high
and as a result the ratio of approved projects is low, hampering the allocation of
committed funds. As a whole, Eurostars-2 is a competitive programme aimed at financing
the best close to market projects performed in international cooperation and led by R & D
performing SMEs.
The training of the Eurostars National Project Coordinators and Project Officers is crucial,
so more specific training sessions about how proposal are evaluated will be organised by
the EUREKA Secretariat. Knowing more about the evaluation can give inference how a
good application should look like. The assistance to the eligibility sessions is also an
important possibility to gain experience on the same topic. Best Practices will be shared
by visits of experienced officers to other countries upon request, and the review of draft
proposals will be done in cooperation between the officers of the different countries
involved in the consortium.
Additionally National Offices will organise workshops for participants focused on how to
write competitive applications, and also will provide support services to the participants
in the preparation of proposals by reviewing draft applications prior to their submission.
This will be supported by experienced offices.
4b) Increased commitment of some countries
Given that only guaranteed-funded projects are approved in the Eurostars-2 programme,
and this is done with national funds, there is a correlation between the commitment of
each country and the number of projects approved. In a scenario of global financial crisis,
some countries cannot live up to their original financial commitments, which reduces
their number of applications approved, and also causes problems in other countries
having sufficient funding available.
A detailed analysis will be made to determine the reasons of the reduced commitment in
those countries, and bilateral discussions will take place in order to determine what
support can be provided by the network in order to raise the funding and explore the
availability of national and regional funding programmes.
4c) Better promotion of the programme
The visibility of Eurostars-2 programme and the brand Eurostars will be raised to
facilitate the previous goals:
85
A specific study about how to reach the targeted clients of the programme, the R&D
performing SMEs, will be conducted in order to review the current communication
strategy and tools
Every year the Chairmanship of EUREKA will organise an international Eurostars-2
event directed to promote the participation of all participating states and partner
countries in the Eurostars-2 programme
The cooperation in communication activities with the European Enterprise Network and
the European Commission will be enhanced, given their key role as promoters of the
innovation and internationalisation between the SMEs
The protection of the current figurative trademark and the word trademark will be
extended for another ten years
An improved homepage will be in place and the presence in social media will be
increased. The webinars organised before each Cut-off date, which are already well
accepted, will be more widely promoted
The visibility of National Contact Points will be increased
These measures will be applied to all the countries participating in the programme with
special attention to those that need an increase in the quantity or the quality of the
proposals.
4d) Decreased administrative burden
The Eurostars-2 programme is characterised by being centrally evaluated and financed in
a decentralised manner.
Currently the administrative burden in the ESE and the participating states and partner
countries is too high. We’ll strive for a leaner internal administration by improving the
current methodologies of ethics assessment, internal audits and measures while
preserving the EU financing and regulations.
Duplicate requests for information to participants at national and international levels will
be avoided by the implementation of the common reporting system. Again, learning from
Best Practice developed by the members of the EUREKA Network is a great opportunity
to improve national procedures and rules and make them more innovative and
appropriate for SMEs.
4f) Impact Assessment
According to the General Implementing Guidelines, for the Eurostars-2 programme
endorsed by the High Level Group in Ankara in June 2013 a mid-term as well as an ex-
post evaluation shall be carried out in close cooperation between the Commission and the
Member States. Furthermore an objective impact evaluation of the Eurostars programme,
based on both internal (collected by the ESE) and external sources of information and
data should be carried out. The EUREKA network should discuss with the Commission
further details and the timing of such an impact assessment. Ideally, the impact
assessment should support the discussions and preparation of Eurostars beyond 2020.
5) Conclusions
EUREKA strongly believes in the necessity and opportunities of a joint programme based
on the well-established and reliable model of Eurostars-2. Based on the interest,
commitment and demand of the SMEs, Member States and European Union the excellent
and strong programme Eurostars should be continued beyond 2020 and we should
start with the discussions now.
The programme will be an important instrument of an overall innovation chain within the
European Research and Innovation Area and national innovation policies to support SMEs
in developing innovative and competitive products that will impact job creation and
economic development. Eurostars will still have a unique position in the funding
landscape in the future.
86
Eurostars stimulates and finances R&D activities in SMEs in an international environment.
Thus Eurostars contributes to and strengthens the Industrial Leadership Pillar of H2020.
With the co-funding of the Commission, the participating states and partner countries
Eurostars is one of the best examples of the ERA. To continue with the joint programme
will create a win-win situation for the participating states, partner countries and the
Commission as well. Together we can effectuate more than each of the parties alone.
87
ANNEX 6: PUBLIC CONSULTATION QUESTIONS
Section D - EUROSTARS2
Introduction to Eurostars2
Eurostars supports international innovative projects led by research and development-
performing small- and medium-sized enterprises (R&D-performing SMEs). With its
bottom-up approach, Eurostars supports the development of rapidly marketable
innovative products, processes and services that help improve the daily lives of people
around the world. Eurostars has been carefully developed to meet the specific needs of
SMEs. It is an ideal first step in international cooperation, enabling small businesses to
combine and share expertise and benefit from working beyond national borders.
Eurostars is a joint programme between EUREKA and the European Union, co-funded
from the national budgets of 36 Eurostars Participating States and Partner Countries and
by the European Union through Horizon 2020. In the 2014-2020 period it has a total
public budget of €1.14 billion.
Additional information can be found at www.eurostars-eureka.eu/about-eurostars
D.1: What is your level of familiarity with the Eurostars2 Joint Programme?
Very good
Good
Fair
Low
D.2: Have you participated in an action under Eurostars-1 and/or Eurostars-2 (several
answers are possible)?
Yes, in funded project of Eurostars1
Yes, in non-selected project of Eurostars1
Yes, in funded project of Eurostars2
Yes, in non-selected project of Eurostars2
No
D.3: If you are not involved in a Eurostars project, how did you find out information
about the Joint Programme?
In a conference
At a scientific workshop or training event
Through media (Internet, national information channels, newspapers, specialised
press, etc.)
Through national networks (NPS, NCPs, EEN, KAM, Regional authorities, national or
regional Innovation Agencies, national or regional Chambers of Commerce, etc.)
Other
Please specify (maximum 100 characters, mandatory for "Other"):
88
Objectives
C.4: To which extent is the Eurostars programme likely to achieve the following
objectives?
Fully To a
large
extent
To a
small
extent
Not No
opinion
Promote research activities that are
carried out by transnational collaboration
of research- and development performing
SMEs among themselves or including
other actors of the innovation chain (e.g.
universities, research organisations)
Promote research activities where results
are to be introduced into the market
within two years of the completion of an
activity
Increase the accessibility, efficiency and
efficacy of public funding for SMEs in
Europe by aligning, harmonising and
synchronising the national funding
mechanisms of Participating States
Promote and increase the participation of
SMEs without previous experience in
transnational research
Comments (maximum 600 characters)
D.5: A major objective of the Joint Programme is to introduce the results of projects into
the market within 2 years of the completion of the project. Does the present design of
the Eurostars Joint Programme sufficiently support such a target, do you see any
possibilities to improve this?
Fully
To a large extent
To a small extent
No
No opinion
Comments (maximum 600 characters)
D.6: In the absence of a Eurostars-2 grant, would R&D performing SMEs have
undertaken their projects by their proper or other means? (maximum 600 characters)
Yes
To a large extent
To a small extent
No
No opinion
Comments (maximum 600 characters)
D.7: Is there sufficient budget from Participating States to achieve the objectives of the
Eurostars2 Programme?
89
Sufficient budgets from all Participating States
Sufficient budgets from some Participating States
Insufficient budgets from some Participating States
Insufficient budgets from all Participating States
No opinion
Comments (maximum 600 characters)
Relevance
D.8: Does the Eurostars-2 Joint Programme in its design and implementation contribute
to the general objectives of making Horizon 2020 more oriented towards innovation and
economic impact and support the holistic approach to innovation taken by Horizon 2020?
Yes
To a large extent
To a small extent
No
No opinion
Comments (maximum 600 characters)
D.9: Is the design of the Eurostars-2 Joint Programme (minimum 2 participants from 2
different Eurostars-2 participating States, R&D performing SME as leading partner in the
consortia, 3 years project duration, project results to be introduced into the market after
to 2 years of the project completion, etc.) an adequate response to the observations on
SME innovation support in FP7 and H2020?
Yes
To a large extent
To a small extent
No
No opinion
Comments (maximum 600 characters)
Coherence
D.10: Does the Eurostars-2 Joint Programme complement other interventions /
instruments from Horizon 2020 (SME Instrument, ‘Fast Track to Innovation’,
Collaborative projects, Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions) or from other EU programmes
(COSME) and realise synergies where possible?
Yes
To a large extent
To a small extent
No
No opinion
Comments (maximum 600 characters)
D.11: Are the resources mobilized by the Participating States and the European Union
justified by the scale and scope of the initiative?
Yes
To a large extent
To a small extent
No
90
No opinion
Comments (maximum 600 characters)
D.12: How do you assess the efficiency of the mechanisms and tools ensuring the entry-
into-the-market of results/achievements of Eurostars-2 ended projects?
Very efficient
Efficient
Partially efficient
Not efficient
No opinion
Comments (maximum 600 characters)
Effectiveness
D.13: In your opinion is the Programme sufficiently accessible in particular for R&D
performing SMEs?
Yes
To a large extent
To a small extent
No
No opinion
Comments (maximum 600 characters)
D.14: What is the benefit for an R&D-performing SME to participate in Eurostars2
projects? (maximum 600 characters)
European Added Value
D.15: Do you think that the total amount of EU financial contribution (i.e. max 287
million EUR) is appropriate in order to achieve the objectives of the Eurostars2
Programme?
Too high
Adequate
Too small
No opinion
Comments (maximum 600 characters)
D.16: What is in your opinion the additional value resulting from the EU intervention in
the Programme compared to what could be achieved at national or regional level? (maximum 600 characters)
D.17: Is the design and performance of Eurostars2 in line with the spirit of Art.185 TFEU
and with the requirements of Art.26 of Horizon 2020, in particular concerning financial,
managerial and scientific integration?
Yes
To a large extent
To a small extent
91
No
No opinion
Comments (maximum 600 characters)
Strengths, weaknesses and the future
D.18: In your opinion what are the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats
regarding the management of Eurostars2 Joint Programme? (maximum 600 characters)
D.19: What are the lessons learnt for the future? (maximum 600 characters)
D.20: Would you be in favour of a future Eurostars initiative?
Yes, as a joint programmes with the participation of both Participating States and the
EU
Yes, as a joint programmes, but only with the Participating States
No, I would prefer community support in the context of a future Framework
Programme
No, only national programmes are relevant in this domain
No opinion
Other
Comments (maximum 600 characters, mandatory for "Other")
D.21: Do you have any further comments (maximum 1200 characters)?
92
ANNEX 7: RESULTS OF THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION OF
EUROSTARS-2 PROGRAMME
This section presents an overview of the outcomes of the Public Consultation related to
the Evaluation of the Eurostars-2 Art.185 initiative. The online survey was open for
submission for more than 13 weeks (27 January – 30 April 2017).
1. Profile of the respondents to the public consultation
As shown in Figure.1, about two thirds of the 93 respondents belong to a single
institution or company and one respondent is an individual.
Figure.1. Capacity of respondents
Figure.2. shows that 58% of respondents are business organisations (among which two
thirds SMEs), 22% public authorities and 15% universities.
Figure 2. SMEs
In terms of geographic coverage, Figure 3 indicates that nearly 50% of respondents are
originating from 5 countries: Belgium (16.1%), Norway (9.7%), Spain, Greece (7.5%)
and Italy (6.5%). This geographical snapshot is of importance once related to the total
Eurostars-2 contribution to Research & Development and innovation activities in Europe
and partner countries across participating countries. Germany, The Netherlands, France
and Switzerland, identified amongst the Top 5 countries in this matter, have showed
limited interest in the consultation.
The attractiveness in responding to such survey from SMEs is strong and the ratio
Companies- Institutions is quite balanced.
Figure 3 adds an interesting aspect of the disproportion of interests in responding to such
public consultation, more importantly in Partner Countries and Moderate Innovator
35.5
62.4
2.2
As an individual
On behalf of a single institution/company
On behalf of an “umbrella” organisation of EU interest
93
countries. It is interesting to raise the absence of audiences from Member States from
EU-13 where alternative national or regional innovation-support measures for SMEs may
exist.
Figure 3. Country of respondents
In addition, it is interesting to note that the level of familiarity with the Eurostars2 Joint
Programme varies amongst countries, but remains viable (Figure 4). More than two
thirds of respondents have a fair or a very good knowledge of the programme while only
3% of respondents consider it low. In fact, three quarters of respondents have already
participated in a Eurostars (1 or 2) project.
Figure.4. Level of familiarity with the Eurostars2 Joint Programme
The majority of the surveying entities seem to have learnt about the Programme thanks
to networks of national and/or European sources. Figure 5 shows that most of
respondents (near 35%) know about Eurostars Programme through national/regional
networks (NPS, NCP, EEN, authorities, innovation agencies…) followed by "Media" (23%).
Other undefined sources of information account for the 33%. "Conferences" and
"Scientific workshops and training events" account for the remaining 4% and 5%
respectively.
Such results provide a positive feedback of satisfaction among beneficiaries and
surveyors with active networks. This indicates that the tools developed can be widely
available Such interpretation seems quite pragmatic as similar ratio is found when
1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2
3.2 3.2
4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3
5.4 6.5
7.5 9.7 9.7
16.1
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
Albania
Sweden
Switzerland
Ukraine
Germany
Netherlands
Cyprus
Slovenia
Other
Finland
Denmark
Austria
Portugal
Romania
France
Bulgaria
Croatia
Lithuania
Poland
Turkey
Serbia
Italy
Greece
Spain
Norway
Belgium
15.1
28.0
3.2
53.8
Fair Good Low Very good
94
analysing other EU instrument(s) available for SMEs, funded under Horizon 202025.
However, the potential of such network seem to be in need of further exploration as 65%
of the consulted entities have received the information through alternative ways of
communication (Conference, media, and so forth).
Figure 5. Participation in an action under Eurostars-1 and/or Eurostars-2
Thus, it is interesting to link such consultation with the analysis of EU added value
completed by the Eurostars-2 projects26 ; it appears easier for R&D performing SMEs to
participate in programmes at regional and national levels.
Figure 6. If you are not involved in a Eurostars project, how did you find out information
about the Joint Programme?
In terms of information process, 94.6% of participants in the public consultation find that
Eurostars promotes research activities carried out by SMEs among themselves or
including other actors of the innovation chain, fully (59.1%) or to a large extent (35.5%)
– Figure 6.
25 Mid-term evaluation report of the SME instrument, European Commission, February 2017, p110, when stating " Surveyed agencies indicate that availability throughout Member States and Associated countries can best be guaranteed by making the Enterprise Europe Network responsible (85%), or by having the EU maintain a repository of proven approaches (71%)".
26 Interim evaluation of the Eurostars-2 Joint Programme , EC, June 2017, p17.
24.7
75.3
No Yes
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0
At a scientific workshop or training event
In a conference
Other
Through media (Internet, nationalinformation channels, newspapers,
specialised press, etc.)
Through national networks (NPS, NCPs,EEN, KAM, Regional authorities, national or
regional Innovation Agencies, national or…
95
Regarding achievement of Objective D.4 (Promotion of research activities where results
are to be introduced into the market within two years of the completion of an activity),
80.7% of respondents considers the goal fully (44.1%) achieved or to a large extent. A
18.3% of respondents think that this objective is to a small extent accomplished (Figure
8.9).
Figure 7 (Objectives D.4): To which extent is the Eurostars programme likely to achieve
the following objectives?: Promote research activities that are carried out by
transnational collaboration of research- and development performing SMEs among
themselves or including other actors of the innovation chain (e.g. universities, research
organisations)?
Figure 8. (Objectives D.4): To which extent is the Eurostars programme likely to achieve
the following objectives?: Promote research activities where results are to be introduced
into the market within two years of the completion of an activity
Such picture has an importance when bearing in mind the objectives of the Programme
as defined in the EU legal Decision. The particularity of "being market-oriented" is
essential for the programme as it is defined that 'the R&D-performing SME(s)
59.1
1.1
35.5
4.3
Fully No opinion To a large extent To a small extent
36.6
1.1 44.1
18.3
Fully No opinion To a large extent To a small extent
96
collaborating in a Eurostars-2 funded project shall have a maximum duration of three
years and within two years of project completion the product of the research should be
ready for launch into the market'. Therefore, the 18.3% of respondents which have
stated that Eurostars-2 Programme is to a small extent achieving the market-oriented
approach may be critical for the assessment of the Effectiveness of the Programme.
Figure 9. (Objectives D.4): To which extent is the Eurostars programme likely to achieve
the following objectives? Increase the accessibility, efficiency and efficacy of public
funding for SMEs in Europe by aligning, harmonising and synchronising the national
funding mechanisms of Participating States.
Also the public consultation indicates that the accessibility, efficiency and efficacy of
public funding available for SMEs, R&D intensive included, are perceived as more positive
with the existence of a programme such as Eurostars-2. 75.4% responded in this sense,
amongst which 43% fully agree with such perception.
In comparing results from the respondents on R&D performant SMEs and on the
achievement of accessing the market within a limited fixed timeframe, it would be useful
to assess more in details the profiling of the 19.4% of targeted audience which
responded negatively ('to a small extent'). It would also be useful to link such profiling to
the reasons of their statement and assess to which extend the external coherence of the
programme remains sustainable.
When asked about the current Eurostars design in order to support the introduction of
results into the market within 2 years after completion, 67.8% of respondents consider
this goal achieved (fully 23.7%, to a large extent 44.1%); 23.7% believe this goal
accomplished to a small extent, with 4.3% thinking that the goal is not achieved (Figure
10).
43.0
5.4
32.3
19.4
Fully No opinion To a large extent To a small extent
97
Figure 10. (D.5): A major objective of the Joint Programme is to introduce the results of
projects into the market within 2 years of the completion of the project. Does the present
design of the Eurostars Joint Programme sufficiently support such a target, do you see
any possibilities to improve this?
Figure 11. (D.6): In the absence of a Eurostars-2 grant, would R&D performing SMEs
have undertaken their projects by their proper or other means?
82.8% of respondents think that the SMEs supported by Eurostars-2 programme would
not have undertaken their projects by their proper or other means (19.4% fully no,
63,4% to a large extent).
Such survey needs to be combined with the ratios already set in Figure 9 which assesses
the level of promotion. Majority of respondents, which also have participated to the
Programme as previous figures mentioned, considers that the Programme is not fulfilling
its support and has not improved during its implementation. The essence of the
Eurostars-2 programme objective is to introduce into the market after two years of
completion of the project. Indicators as the ones extracted from Figure 11 show two
elements:
23.7
4.3
4.3
44.1
23.7
Fully No No opinion To a large extent To a small extent
19.4
3.2
10.8
63.4
3.2
No No opinion To a large extent To a small extent Yes
98
(1) At the time of the mid-term evaluation analysis is not aligned with the possibility of
completed projects, funded under Eurotars-2 Programme. However, such possibility
should be interpreted with care as the programme was launched on the twentieth day
following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union on the 14
May 2014.
(2) The completed projects were not amongst the target audience who contributed to
this public consultation. However, this assumption also appears fragile when taking into
account that Eurostars-2 aims at promoting transnational market-oriented research
activities for R&D performing SMEs in any market area.
Such latest remarks lead adequately to the following Figure 11 which relates to the
relevance in receiving funding from Eurostars-2 Programme and Figure 12 on the
available funding envelope per project.
Figure 12. (D.7): Is there sufficient budget from Participating States to achieve the
objectives of the Eurostars2 Programme?
When asked about the budget (Figure 12), 49.5% of the respondents believe that it is
"insufficient budget from some Participant States", compared to the 24.7% that
considers it sufficient. 10.8% think that the budget from all Participating States is
sufficient (2.2% insufficient). There is a remaining 12.9% showing no opinion.
These two elements of available and amplitude of funding under Eurostars-2 Programme
for R&D performing SMEs requires to be interpreted with the current economic crisis
under which Europe is for the lest years. In such macro-ecosystem, the programme
features, of being a bottom-up programme, from any technological domain, for any
market appears attractive.
When asked about the contribution of Eurostars to make H2020 more oriented towards
innovation and economic impact, Figure 13 shows that 78.5% think so (44.1% plus
34.4% to a large extent). Only a 1.1% answers "no" and 11.8% "to a small extent", with
8.6% with no opinion.
2.2
49.5
12.9
10.8
24.7
Insufficient budgets from all Participating States
Insufficient budgets from some Participating States
No opinion
Sufficient budgets from all Participating States
Sufficient budgets from some Participating States
99
Figure 13. (Relevance D.8): Does the Eurostars-2 Joint Programme in its design and
implementation contribute to the general objectives of making Horizon 2020 more
oriented towards innovation and economic impact and support the holistic approach to
innovation taken by Horizon 2020?
It is too early to say at that point that such proportion is evidence-based as it is required
two years after completion of the project to measure, thanks to the reporting system put
in place, the economic impact of the programme. It is however clear that the perception
of the projects' projections by the projects' holders is strongly positive.
Concerning the design of Eurostars-2 (participants, SME leadership, duration, etc.), most
of the respondents (78.5%) have a positive view again: 51.6% considered that the
design is an adequate response to the observations on SME innovation support in FP7
and H2020 and 26.9% to a large extent. The figure also shows 11.8% "to a small
extent", 1.1% "no" and 8.6% "no opinion".
1.1
8.6
34.4
11.8
44.1
No No opinion To a large extent To a small extent Yes
100
Figure 14. (D.9): Is the design of the Eurostars-2 Joint Programme (minimum 2
participants from 2 different Eurostars-2 participating States, R&D performing SME as
leading partner in the consortia, 3 years project duration, project results to be introduced
into the market after to 2 years of the project completion, etc.) an adequate response to
the observations on SME innovation support in FP7 and H2020?
35% of respondents answered that Eurostars-2 complements other instruments from
H2020 (SME Instrument, FTI, collaborative projects, MSCA,…) or other EU programmes
(like COSME), realising synergies wherever is possible (Figure 15). also, 23.7% agrees
with this statement to a large extent, unlike a 19.4% plus 4.3% that consider this goal
achieved to a smaller extent or definitely not (respectively). There is 17.2% of
respondents with no opinion.
Interesting to compare such perception with the ones resulting of a similar objective
towards innovative SMEs under SME instrument. In relation to the Fast-Track to
Innovation (FTI) pilot scheme as well as Eurostars, the complementary nature of the
SME Instrument is predominantly in its specific focus on supporting individual SMEs. 27
However, the ratio of around 23% considering that the complementarity is of a small
extent combined with the 17.2% of no opinions shows most importantly that the
beneficiaries of the Euroastars-2 programme and to a larger extend the respondents do
not have a clear picture of the distinct specificities of these different instruments
available for Innovative SMEs, under Horizon 2020. Such presumption could also refer to
the definition as only the Eurostars Programme refers strictly to R&D performant SMEs
and not only SMEs carrying an innovative projects as under SME Instrument or FTI.
27 See, "mid term evaluation of "Innovation in SMEs", February 2016, p97-100.
1.1
8.6
26.9
11.8
51.6
No No opinion To a large extent To a small extent Yes
101
Figure 15. (Coherence D.10): Does the Eurostars-2 Joint Programme complement other
interventions / instruments from Horizon 2020 (SME Instrument, ‘Fast Track to
Innovation’, Collaborative projects, Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions) or from other EU
programmes (COSME) and realise synergies where possible?
Figure 16. (D.11): Are the resources mobilized by the Participating States and the
European Union justified by the scale and scope of the initiative?
Figure 16 confirms the relative knowledge of Eurostars-2 programme with regards to
mobilisation of resources from the Participating States and the EU. 65% of respondents
consider positively this mobilization while 11% of them answer "to a small extent" or
"no" (3%). The 14% remaining, of "no opinion" remains again an indicator on the
relative knowledge about the Programme features (see Figure 17).
Figure 17 shows that only 7.5% of respondents think Eurostars-2 is very efficient in
terms of the mechanisms and tools ensuring the entry-into-the-market of
results/achievements of ended projects, 29.0% efficient, 34.4% partially efficient, 6.5%
not efficient and 22.6% show no opinion.
4.3
17.2
23.7
19.4
35.5
No No opinion To a large extent To a small extent Yes
3
14
45
11
20
No No opinion To a large extent To a small extent Yes
102
Figure 17. (D.12): How do you assess the efficiency of the mechanisms and tools
ensuring the entry-into-the-market of results/achievements of Eurostars-2 ended
projects?
When asked about the accessibility of the Programme particularly for R&D performing
SMEs, 74.2% of respondents shows a positive opinion (45.2% "yes" plus 29.0% "to a
large extent"). 16.1% says "to a small extent" jointly with 4.3% saying that the
Programme is not accessible.
Figure 18. (Effectiveness D.13): In your opinion is the Programme sufficiently accessible
in particular for R&D performing SMEs?
29.0
22.6
6.5
34.4
7.5
Efficient No opinion Not efficient Partially efficient Very efficient
4.3 5.4
29.0
16.1
45.2
No No opinion To a large extent To a small extent Yes
103
47.3% of respondents consider the EU financial contribution to the Eurostars-2
Programme (i.e. max 287 million EUR) "adequate", compared to 39.8% considering it
"too small", completed with 12.9% of "no opinion" (Figure 19). Again such perception of
about 50% of the respondents is to be analysed with care within the macroeconomic
environment where the R&D performing SMEs are driving their projects.
Figure 19. European Added Value D.15: Do you think that the total amount of EU
financial contribution (i.e. max 287 million EUR) is appropriate in order to achieve the
objectives of the Eurostars2 Programme?
Finally in this section, Figure 20, when asked about the alignment of Eurostars 2 with the
spirit of Art.185 TFEU and with the requirements of Art.26 of Horizon 2020, in particular
concerning financial, managerial and scientific integration, 24.7% consider it in line,
jointly with 35.5% that believes "to a large extent". There are 26.9% of respondents with
"no opinion", 10.8% answering "to a small extent" and 2.2% "no".
47.3
12.9
39.8
Adequate No opinion Too small
104
Figure 20. (D.17): Is the design and performance of Eurostars2 in line with the spirit of
Art.185 TFEU and with the requirements of Art.26 of Horizon 2020, in particular
concerning financial, managerial and scientific integration?
2.2
26.9
35.5
10.8
24.7
No No opinion To a large extent To a small extent Yes
Getting in touch with the EU
IN PERSON All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct Information Centres.
You can find the address of the centre nearest you at: http://europa.eu/contact
ON THE PHONE OR BY E-MAIL Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union.
You can contact this service
– by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls),
– at the following standard number: +32 22999696 or
– by electronic mail via: http://europa.eu/contact
Finding information about the EU
ONLINE Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa website at:
http://europa.eu
EU PUBLICATIONS You can download or order free and priced EU publications from EU Bookshop at:
http://bookshop.europa.eu. Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained
by contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre (see http://europa.eu/contact)
EU LAW AND RELATED DOCUMENTS For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1951 in all the official language versions,
go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu
OPEN DATA FROM THE EU The EU Open Data Portal (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en/data) provides access to
datasets from the EU. Data can be downloaded and reused for free, both for commercial and
non-commercial purposes.
The Decision of the European Parliament and the Council on the Union’s participation in
the Article 185 initiative Eurostars-2 Joint Programme ("Eurostars-2") under Horizon
2020 foresaw that the European Commission shall carry out an interim evaluation by 30
June 2017. This report accordingly presents the findings of the Interim Evaluation of
"Eurostars-2" prepared by an Expert Panel appointed by the European Commission, DG
Research & Innovation and chaired by Mr Marcel Shaton.
The strengths of the Programme reportedly lie in its bottom-up approach, its stimulus to
international cooperation for SMEs, and its focus on go-to-market of project outputs.
Reported drawbacks are limited active participation to the Programme from quite some
"participating" countries, sub-optimal and heterogeneous implementation modalities
resulting in uncertainties about time-to-contract and funding with selected applicants,
and insufficient quality of data at programme level to guarantee efficient monitoring.
The Expert Group provided short- and long-term recommendations based on available
evidence and proposed four policy scenarios for a continuation of Eurostars after 2020.
Studies and reports
[Ca
talo
gu
e n
um
be
r]