German industry’s recommendations on FP9

POSITION | INNOVATION | FP9

German industry’s recommendations on FP9 Key elements of the future EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation – Framework Programme 9 (FP9)

1st June 2018

Executive Summary 23. Oktober 2017

1



Significantly increase and double the EU budget for research. Promote the participation & collaboration of especially Start-Ups, SMEs and Mid-Caps1 to leverage their contribution to an efficient European research & innovation eco-system.



Reinforce industrial research: safeguard the substantial research engagement of Europe’s industry in Key Enabling Technologies (KETs) by anchoring KETs in at least one pillar of FP9. Secure industry involvement in all three pillars of FP9 to enable Europe sustaining an industrial leadership position in times of increasingly fierce global competition.



Reinforce contractual public private partnerships (cPPPs) and Joint Technology Initiatives (JTIs) to increase effectiveness in achieving research objectives and communication of their relevance for society.



Involve industry in the mission selection and governance process and in its implementation.



Prioritize a practical & efficient implementation to ensure maximum impact by: -

Keeping the excellence principle

-

Introducing easily understandable/straight forward instrument logic and rules.

-

Ensuring more acceptable success rate rates compared to the required effort to make a high quality proposal.

-

Guaranteeing time to grant from first publishing to project start should be possible within 12 months.

-

Allowing beneficiaries to use their nationally accepted accounting principles if they fulfil internationally recognized standards.

Mid Caps are defined as enterprises having around 1000 employees.

Christian Rudelt | Digitalisation and Innovation | T: +49 30 2028-1572 | c.rudelt@bdi.eu | www.bdi.eu

German industry’s recommendations on FP9

Key Messages 1. Prioritize a coherent EU R&I policy as a key objective in EU policies 

Prioritize impact – and keep the excellence principle



Double the EU budget for R&I



Focus on civilian R&I



Safeguard the ability for substantial research engagement of European industry in Key Enabling Technologies. Update the KET portfolio with digital KETs



Promote cross-border collaborative research and innovation projects with clear European added value



Strengthen partnership instruments at European level



Achieve better and stronger synergies with other Union programmes, such as the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF)



Facilitate the alignment of complementary national programmes to enable leverage and synergies



Better communicate the role of European R&I programmes and their impact



Embed innovation in education and foster a more innovative culture



Continue Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs) of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT)

2. Focus on industry participation 

Reduce oversubscription



Continue to offer grants for all actors along the value chain



Maintain a balanced approach to the publication of research data, including an “opt-out” from open access



Design the European Innovation Council (EIC) to foster innovation



Promote disruptive and incremental innovation



Missions: involve industry in the process of selecting appropriate missions (mission approach is welcomed by industry)

3. Keep it simple –continue simplification 

Simplify funding schemes for industrial participants by allowing beneficiaries to use their nationally accepted principles as long as they comply with internationally recognized standards.



Reduce the administrative burden for the beneficiaries (less reporting, less audits). Design calls with more focus (challenge) but leave the solution technology choice open.



Reduce the effective time to grant from first publication to project start within 12 months.

3

German industry’s recommendations on FP9

Table of Content Key Messages ...................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................... 5 BDI’s suggestions for a future-oriented post 2020 European R&I Programme ............................ 5 Prioritize a coherent EU R&I policy as a key objective in EU policies .................................................. 5 Prioritize impact – and keep the excellence principle ................................................................... 5 Double the EU budget for R& I ...................................................................................................... 5 Focus on civilian R&I ..................................................................................................................... 6 Safeguard the ability for substantial research engagement of European industry in KETs. Update the KETs portfolio with digital KETs ................................................................................. 6 Promote cross-border collaborative research and innovation projects with clear European added value .............................................................................................................................................. 7 Strengthen partnership instruments at European level ................................................................. 7 Achieve better and stronger synergies with other EU and national programmes ......................... 8 Better communicate the role of R&I European programmes and their impact ............................. 9 Embed innovation in education and foster a more innovative culture ........................................... 9 Focus on industry participation.............................................................................................................. 9 Reduce oversubscription ............................................................................................................... 9 Continue to offer grants for all actors of the value chain ............................................................. 10 Maintain a balanced approach to the publication of research data, including an “opt-out” from open access ................................................................................................................................ 10 Design the European Innovation Council to foster innovation .................................................... 10 Promote disruptive and incremental innovation .......................................................................... 11 Missions: involve industry in the process of selecting appropriate missions (mission approach is welcomed by industry) ................................................................................................................. 11 Keep it simple – continue simplification .............................................................................................. 13 Simplify funding schemes ............................................................................................................ 13 Reduce bureaucracy ................................................................................................................... 13 Design calls appropriately ........................................................................................................... 13 Impressum ......................................................................................................................................... 14

4

German industry’s recommendations on FP9

Introduction Research and innovation (R&I) are key drivers of job creation, economic growth and competitiveness in Europe. Especially in the digital knowledge economy, massive investments in R&I on a European scale are fundamental for Europe’s societies to keep up with global competition.

European R&I policy contributes tremendously to European integration and a successful (Digital) Single Market. It helps to find European answers to European or global problems. To reach these goals, effective, ambitious and coherent European R&I strategies and policies are needed.

The upcoming European Framework Programme for Research and Innovation 9 (FP9) will be key to reaching these goals. FP 9 as the successor of the currently running EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation Horizon 2020 should be designed accordingly to reach these goals.

Collaborative Research and Innovation (R&I) at European level are needed more than ever in order to make the ongoing technological transitions for both European industry and society a success. FP9 – as the Lamy Report clearly underlines – can create European added value through the promotion of an innovation eco-system built on transnational and multidisciplinary collaboration among different actors operating along industrial value chains. 2

BDI’s suggestions for a future-oriented post 2020 European R&I Programme Prioritize a coherent EU R&I policy as a key objective in EU policies Prioritize impact – and keep the excellence principle Joint European research needs to focus on programmes and projects that matter and bring clear benefit to European citizens. The excellence principle has made Horizon 2020 a globally renowned research and innovation programme. It should be kept also in FP9 and not be weakened or compromised by geographical or cohesion criteria.

Furthermore, Europe needs to define a more efficient communication strategy in order to make public opinion informed and aware of the benefits of European innovation policy. In order to value Europe and its R&I efforts and create more acceptance for innovation/new technologies as well as public spending on R&I, citizens need to see the impact of EU R&I on solving European challenges and problems. Therefore, it is important to use existing good practices (e.g. in public private partnerships) as a benchmark. Joint Technology Initiatives have specific measurable objectives and key performance indicators (KPIs) which are used for evaluating and communicating the impact.

Double the EU budget for R& I Research and innovation generate prosperity across the entire society and economy as they are about creating solutions, opportunities and options. For decades European framework programmes have been contributing to scale up funds in support of research and innovation, bringing a clear European added value in specific areas – such as climate change, energy transition, security, mobility, etc. – where progress or sustainable solutions cannot be achieved by individual Member States.

„LAB-FAB-APP: Investing in the European future we want“. Report of the independent High Level Group on maximising the impact of EU Research & Innovation Programmes, p.

8.

See: http://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/archive/other_reports_studies_and_documents/hlg_2017_report.pd f 2

5

German industry’s recommendations on FP9

EU R&I Framework programmes have been successful in increasing collaboration across stakeholders in different Member States, supporting risk reduction, accelerating time to market and demonstrating mutual commitment and acceptance. Together with national programmes, they have gradually increased European financing for R&I with the objective of achieving the target of three per cent of the EU's GDP to be spent on R&D by 2020. Despite these efforts, the EU as of today is still lagging behind in terms of R&D expenditures as a percentage of GDP (currently two per cent).

It is also extremely important to significantly increase public spending both at EU and national levels and support the global competitiveness of European industries, especially in times of accelerated competition from Asia and the US. Public spending plays a key role in shaping a pro-innovation ecosystem. The EU funding is largely leveraged by the necessary matching funds for innovative projects coming from the business sector, that has the highest share of R&D spending in the EU and accounts for 65 per cent of all R&D spending. This is why FP9 should be recognized as a top priority for Europe and be equipped accordingly with a consistent increase of its overall budget.

The need to increase the budget for research and innovation in the next framework programme, first stated by the European Parliament3, was confirmed by the Lamy Report recommendations 4 stating that doubling the overall budget of the post 2020 EU R&I programme is the best investment the EU can make. BDI strongly supports this finding by the Lamy Group. A substantial budget increase would also help reducing oversubscription while ensuring higher success rates.

Focus on civilian R&I FP9 should be exclusively focused on civilian R&I and technology. Defence research should be organized and funded separately without having a negative impact on the FP9 budget.

Safeguard the ability for substantial research engagement of European industry in KETs. Update the KETs portfolio with digital KETs FP9 must continue to have – as it is the case in Horizon 2020 – a strong emphasis on areas of research and innovation with a strong industrial dimension and on achieving EU leadership in Key Enabling Technologies. More generally, all industrial technologies (digitalization, space, advanced materials, manufacturing, biotech e.g.) must continue to be at the heart of the future EU R&I programme. The “industrial leadership” dimension, characterized by a strong collaborative research approach and based on key instruments such as public private partnerships, Joint Technology Initiatives and the EIT KICs, must be maintained and strengthened as a fundamental pre-condition to overcome the valley of death and the gap between the demonstration and the commercialization phases.

In particular, the KETs should continue to play a central role as a key component of the innovation process. 2009, six KETs have been identified receiving priority-support under EU research and innovation programmes.5 These KETs were supported with 6, 6 billion EUR, or 8, 5 per cent of the total

3

4

5

In the Resolution adopted on 14 June 2017 the European Parliament has welcome the success of Horizon 2020 and the 1:11 leverage factor and called on the Commission to propose an increased overall budget of EUR 120 billion for FP9.

See HLG-Report “LAB-FAB-APP”, p. 6: Recommendation 1: «Doubling the overall budget of the post-2020 EU research and innovation programme is the best investment the EU can make. Reducing the overall level of R&I investment would be a mistake and a clear reversal of progress. At a minimum, the budget should maintain the average annual growth rate of Horizon 2020, taking the budget foreseen for the programme’s final year as a starting point. This would lead to a seven-year budget of at least €120 billion in current prices”, in: see above.

The six KETs identified in 2009 were: advanced manufacturing technologies, advanced materials, nanotechnology, micro- and nano-electronics, industrial biotechnology and photonics; in: „Re-Finding Industry.

6

German industry’s recommendations on FP9

Horizon 2020 budget. 6 While technology advances, new KETs such as “Artificial intelligence” and “cyber-security and connectivity” are proposed to be integrated into the existing set of KETs which is highly welcomed by BDI. Being structurally enabling, KETs are key factors for developing products with differentiating features, strengthening production processes and generating innovation. In this perspective, KETs represent an essential leverage to the competitiveness of the industrial system and should continue to play a significant role in FP9. Thanks to financial support of Horizon 2020, numerous technologies are now mature enough and ready to be transferred into production processes, while appropriate tools to encourage technology transfer and increasing KETs’ adoption are still lacking on the implementation side.

Furthermore, the three-pillar structure of the current framework programme (Horizon 2020) – namely Excellent Science, Industrial Leadership, Societal Challenges – has proven to be well functioning and was accepted by all stakeholders. Thus it is important to keep and strengthen one pillar in FP9 in which industrial research is anchored. Furthermore, it is important to provide an adequate budget and to focus on technological incremental and disruptive innovation. As stated in the Lamy report, this helps to tackle Europe’s weakness and bridge to valley of death to turn knowledge into innovation. 7 To sum up, BDI urges policy makers to keep research and funding programme on KETs visible by anchoring the KETs in at least one pillar of FP9. Industry involvement should however be secured in all three pillars of FP9.

Promote cross-border collaborative research and innovation projects with clear European added value Horizon 2020 participation rules have fostered collaboration between industry, higher education, research and technology organisations (RTOs, e.g. like Fraunhofer-Institutes in Germany). This has allowed closer contacts and interactions between industry and research. Furthermore, it has strengthened synergies among different actors while taking advantage of opportunities coming from this collaboration. Thanks to large companies’ strong leading capacities, SMEs of the supply chains could strengthen their participation, reducing risks and responsibilities.

In fact, by acting as innovation incubator hubs, large companies can cover the risks implied by innovative initiatives along the whole technology readiness level (TRL) chain. In addition, the possibility to access funding from the framework programme – in the form of grants – has significantly influenced large enterprises’ investment strategies in terms of project development. In light of the considerations above, the participation of enterprises of all sizes – small, medium and large – also in FP9 is deemed essential to turn ideas into impact-driven and value-creating technologies, applications, and solutions.

Strengthen partnership instruments at European level Integrated EU value chains need an integrated EU R&I Policy. EU cooperation and networks are needed where national or regional policies fall short. Cross border European challenges need a coordinated and synchronized European R&I policy and instruments as well. This implies to realize critical mass, share risks and avoid duplication or fragmentation across Member States.

The engagement of the whole innovation ecosystem is supported by contractual public private partnerships (e.g. Factories of the Future or Big Data Value), Joint Technology Initiatives (e.g.

6 7

Report from the High-Level Strategy Group in Industrial Technologies, http://ec.europa.eu/research/industrial_technologies/pdf/re_finding_industry_022018.pdf See above, p. 17.

See HLG-Report “LAB-FAB-APP”, p. 11-12.

p.

9;

see

7

German industry’s recommendations on FP9

CleanSky2, Shift2RAIL) as well as the Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs) of the EIT, in which industry plays a very active role. These instruments are unique platforms which foster cooperation between public and private actors by pooling their diverse capabilities and creating the critical mass for highly innovative projects. PPPs provide a unique opportunity for speeding up innovation through tight interaction of Start-Ups, SMEs, Mid-Caps, large enterprises and RTOs in their respective domains. Furthermore, they also leverage the necessary funds for large-scale European projects and bring together different industries. The EIT KICs significantly improve Europe’s ability to innovate by nurturing entrepreneurial talent, supporting new ideas and bridging the gap between applied research and commercialization.

For these reasons, in FP9 public private partnerships, Joint Technology Initiatives and the EIT KICs should be enhanced and their accessibility be improved in order to speed up efforts in overcoming the valley of death and the gap between the demonstration and the commercialization phases. Also, to fill the deployment gap affecting the European innovation system, high-TRL projects should have a more prominent role in the next Framework Programme.

However, taking into account the results of the midterm reviews of various EU partnerships instruments (cPPPs, JTIs, EIT KICs) BDI asks the Commission to further simplify the fragmented European partnership landscape. For example, artificial intelligence should be driven by already existing and proven organizations like Big Data Value Association (BDVA) and Alliance Internet of Things Innovation (AIOTI) 8 , rather than by a newly established organization. The coherence and complementarities of partnership instruments with EU, national and regional initiatives should be improved, also improving their transparency and openness to newcomers (e.g. Start-Ups) and other smaller R&I players (e.g. Mid Caps).

Achieve better and stronger synergies with other EU and national programmes Increased synergy, coordination and strategic alignment with other EU programmes would help to maximise the impact of FP9. While preserving the specific objectives of each programme (such as cohesion for structural funds, and excellence for R&I respectively), better synergies would contribute to give more effectiveness to the allocation and use of funding, reaching critical mass towards EU targets, and priorities and leveraging private investments. This means that funding of FP9 and ESIF has to be streamlined to ensure complementarity, interoperability and leverage synergies.

This is a fundamental aspect which also requires better coordination and collaboration between the different institutional levels (as well as between the different General Directorates within the Commission at EU level). Gathering the best practices and success stories experienced in the field of synergies should be considered. Effective awareness-raising actions should be developed at European, national and regional level together intervening at the same time. In addition with clear and simplified rules in the Structural Funds Regulations, this should help to best align initiatives, create synergies and further increase effectiveness.

Another aspect to take into consideration is the need for a revision of the State Aid rules which, as underlined by the Lamy Report, appears necessary to make them more in line with the synergies’ processes.9

8

Collaboration Agreement between both organizations signed, March 27, 2018 at the DEI Stakeholder Forum, Villepinte, France 9 See HLG-Report “LAB-FAB-APP”, p. 17.

8

German industry’s recommendations on FP9

Also the Alignment and synchronization with national programmes – e.g. Industrie 4.0 in Germany – has to be improved.

Better communicate the role of R&I European programmes and their impact As mentioned above, European R&I activities are key elements for Europe’s economic growth and competitiveness and appear to be essential to finding solutions to European and global problems.

Sharing results and communicating concrete benefits from EU investment in R&I will increase consensus vis-à-vis the European project and foster cohesion.

The Lamy report rightly addresses the existing deficit of communication about EU R&I programmes’ achievements and impacts. This should become a collective responsibility – from all beneficiaries and involved national and EU policy-makers – to give credits to EU R&I funding and to better communicate its numerous achievements.10 Going further, each funded project should have a communication budget that is fit-for-purpose and individual beneficiaries should adhere to a “charter of communication” that sets shared principles.

Involving citizens in the R&I agenda-setting can indeed contribute to maximizing its impact and to stimulating a stronger demand for innovative products and services. It could also be an opportunity to address the profound aversion to risk that is common to the European culture. However, attention should be given to avoid situations of decision-making processes being delayed or initiatives being minority-driven. Therefore, it is important to consider citizens involvement where it brings clear added(European) value. In practice citizen-fora could feed into the discussion on future EU R&I research agendas and programmes. But the decision making process should be left to the already established mechanisms (e.g. to the DG R&I).

Embed innovation in education and foster a more innovative culture Changing the mind-set in Europe on innovation and risk-taking should be a strategic objective. It is necessary to foster a more innovative culture and ensure that innovation become a core activity of all companies. The Lamy Report rightly calls for education programmes across Europe to systematically embed innovation and entrepreneurship.11 In the spirit of addressing the EU’s innovation deficit, ways of strengthening linkages between academia and industry should be further explored in the preparation of Horizon 2020’s successor.

Focus on industry participation Reduce oversubscription Oversubscription and low success rate remain an issue of great concern in Horizon 2020 given that its success rate levels of around eleven per cent are the lowest experienced in all framework programmes.

Facing this issue is critical to secure credibility of the EU R&I funding programmes on the long-term. A success rate of 20 per cent would be the minimum bar. The two-stage procedure has often been identified as a possible way to reduce oversubscription. It has proven to be a useful tool in many cases to pre-screen proposals. Whenever a two-stage selection procedure is applied, a more selective firststage selection should be implemented, leading to a higher success rate in the second stage (e.g. 3050 per cent). The two stage approach requires moderately focused topics to enable a comparison of proposals and a substantiated first evaluation. However, the two stage process leads to a time to grant from the first publication to the start of the project of well over one year which for many topics is not suitable. Another way would be foreseeing more internal budget flexibility in order to finance excellent

10 11

See HLG-Report “LAB-FAB-APP”, p. 22.

S.a., p. 13-14.

9

German industry’s recommendations on FP9

projects which cannot be supported for the lack of budget linked to a specific call. This would also contribute to reduce the oversubscription problem.

Continue to offer grants for all actors of the value chain Concerning the EU budget after 2020 and, more specifically, the budget to be devoted to the next R&I Framework Program, the White Paper on the Future of EU Finance published on 28 June 2017 seems to go towards a greater “financialization” of the European budget through a wider use of financial instruments (e.g. loans and guarantees).12 Such an approach also appears to be supported by the Lamy Report, with a view of making the Framework Programme a “true investment programme“, also by introducing blending mechanisms of grant, loans and equity-based forms of investment.13 In this regard, financial instruments such as guarantees, loans and equity certainly play an important role, allowing the EU to “do more with less”, taking advantage of the EU budget by generating leverage effects and high return expectations. The same rational applies for the implementation of EFSI which has been designed to attract private capital and stimulate investments based on high quality bankable projects – even if first experiences with EFSI demonstrated further need for improvement and still more focus on innovation.

However, it should be clearly pointed out that financial instruments cannot replace grants. In specific circumstances where investing in innovation presents high-level risks and low return expectations – this is typically the case of activities which are undertaken “before the market” – financial instruments are not suitable and grants should be maintained. Financing risky innovation and new technologies cannot be realized via loans. Loan financing, which presupposes a strong expectation to be reimbursed, is not the ideal financing vehicle for riskier innovative research. For such projects, grants are a better suited form of financing. Grants are also the most important form of funding cross-border collaborative research activities which is a unique asset of the EU R&I Framework programmes.

Given the above considerations, the EU should continue to support investments along the whole value chain, acknowledging that different kinds of investment need to be supported by appropriate instruments and that financial instruments are only under special conditions a proper solution.

Therefore, it will be crucial to properly take into account the objectives of FP9 and avoid to shift the weight towards loans, while reducing grants. At the same time, the EU should continue to support new forms of innovative public procurement at the European and national level.

Maintain a balanced approach to the publication of research data, including an “opt-out” from open access While acknowledging the potential benefits of making research data from public-sector research more widely available, caution is needed to avoid hampering incentives for public-private collaboration along the innovation chain. Open access should not apply by default to data from private-sector R&I performed in public programmes, nor from public-sector research performed in collaboration with industry and (co)-financed by industry. In these cases, tailor-made approaches may be required, in which public and private partners contractually agree on how data access should be managed.

Design the European Innovation Council to foster innovation The future European Innovation Council (EIC) shall be designed to strengthen Europe’s competitiveness and innovation performance, especially in breakthrough research and innovation and the rapid and sustainable scaling up of innovative European Start-Ups. Furthermore, the future EIC –

European Commission: “Reflection paper on the Future of EU finances, first published on 28 June 2017, p 26, in: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/reflection-paper-eu-finances_en.pdf 13 See HLG-Report “LAB-FAB-APP”, p.14-15.

12

10

German industry’s recommendations on FP9

as proposed by the Lamy Report – shall maximize the impact of European funding schemes. By doing so, the EIC will be playing a strategic and advisory role in making the EU funding scheme more customer-friendly and financial instruments more easily accessible. 14 If structure, competence and objectives are well defined and complementary to the European Research Council, the EIC could be an additional valuable player in the EU innovation landscape.

The EIC can be the voice of innovation in Europe and promote excellent European breakthrough disruptive and incremental innovation projects and technologies. Apart from being responsible for executing the SME-instrument, the Fast Track to Innovation (FTI) and for giving coaching and support to Start-Ups and Newcomers in the Framework programmes, the EIC should play a high-level advisory role for the Commission about all innovation funding schemes in FP9. In this respect, the EIC could be a driving force for continuous improvement of EU funding in terms of innovation and simplification. It could also promote synergies between different types of public funding schemes already put in place at local, regional, national or European level, e.g. the R&I programme of FP9 and the EIT KICs. BDI demands that the EIC should not be directing industry research agendas in a top-down manner but rather leave industrial research the freedom to innovate while pushing for projects of high risk and impact in a bottom-up approach. Furthermore, the EIC shall not only promote breakthrough, but also incremental innovation.

However, the EIC should not introduce an extra governance layer on top of existing instruments and related management structures, e.g. such as the EIT. Furthermore, it is of utmost importance from BDI perspective, that all actors of the European innovation ecosystem across all industrial sectors have a stake in the governance procedure of the EIC. The governance of the EIC should not be limited to academia and Start-Up entrepreneurs, but also comprise large companies, Mid Caps and SMEs. Promote disruptive and incremental innovation Horizon 2020’s success and added value can be explained not only through the introduction of a greater balance between research and innovation but also through the promotion of a broad concept of innovation. In the design of the next Framework programme and of the European Innovation Council, the concept of "innovation" should include breakthrough/disruptive/new market-creating innovation and incremental innovation. All kinds of innovation, both disruptive and incremental, are crucial for businesses, for their modernization and digital transformation. Precisely thanks to its large approach to innovation, Horizon 2020 has been successful in producing a positive impact on the real economy allowing businesses to revamp their investment in research and innovation as a way to recover from the financial crises.

Missions: involve industry in the process of selecting appropriate missions (mission approach is welcomed by industry) The concept of research and innovation ‘missions’ is proposed in the Lamy15 and Mazzucato Report.16 Missions are displayed with the aim to favour a more impact-focused approach to address global challenges. This looks attractive as it captures the objective of prioritising investments in areas with a clear EU added value and of defining expected impacts for each of them. It also has the potential to strengthen the link between research-driven and industry-driven EU level activities. However, it is

14 15 16

See HLG-Report “LAB-FAB-APP”, p. 11-12.

See HLG-Report “LAB-FAB-APP”, p. 15-16.

Marina Mazzucato:“Mission-oriented Research& Innovation in the European Union, February 2018, see https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/mazzucato_report_2018.pdf

11

German industry’s recommendations on FP9

important to acknowledge that a number of funded projects under Horizon 2020 and its predecessors already embed this concept of ‘missions’ – especially in the current pillar three of Horizon 2020.

Missions have the potential to combine interdisciplinary, inter-sectorial research activities together with domain-specific application-oriented approaches, for the benefits of European growth and competitiveness. A focussed approach is of utmost importance in order to accommodate sectorial research and reduce oversubscription. Missions may represent an evolution of the ‘social challenges’ approach moving from the identification of specific needs/gaps towards a strengthened effort for real solutions (e.g. innovative technologies, services, products). They shall cover the entire scale of TRL. Should ‘missions’ become the new motto in post-2020 EU R&I funding programmes, the following guiding principles should be taken into account: Missions should: 

Have a clear and substantial EU added value, relevance for EU Single Market



Have a breakthrough or transformative potential



Be technology neutral on how to reach the mission’s objective



Be formulated in a strategic and open manner (not too narrow) with realistic clear targets, the achievement of which can actually be measured and verified. Allow additionality of other funding sources



Be open to all actors



Ensure an interdisciplinary approach



Follow a societal demand and a recognised value, based upon societal consensus (e.g. the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals – SDGs).



Have a “Lighthouse” function, visibility, scale of impact, potential for spill-overs, providing orientation



Be achievable within the time frame of FP9 (i.e. 2026)

So far, clarification is still needed and the clear objectives of a mission have to be defined first. What shall be defined as a mission and how shall it be implemented in the existing EU R&I Framework? Who decides what a mission and the expected outcome is? From BDI perspective, it is of utmost importance that European industry is adequately represented in the governance and selection process of the missions.

However, it is important that missions do not create a distortion of competition and markets. Missions must not interfere with market-driven investments. They should be pre-competitive and be justified by a clear intervention logic. Missions should be based on societal consensus, ideally where the expected societal benefit is greatest. This might be relatively easy to decide for missions in areas with visible needs and benefits, e.g. a mission to reduce cancer mortality rates by 75 per cent in Europe. However, in other areas, where the target is still disputed or where innovations are rather market-driven, it may be much more difficult.

Finally, it is important to acknowledge that not all kinds of research can be framed into missions.

Missions can complement, but do not replace curiosity-driven, cross-cutting and enabling applied

12

German industry’s recommendations on FP9

industrial research. Applied research, especially on KETs such as photonics or advanced (new) materials, takes time and must be started long before it can be used in market-driven innovation or mission type R&I activities. The existing but also new KETs will be needed to technically support the realization of the missions. Furthermore, the investments in applied research and KETs can only be paid back by use in a wide range of applications, sectors and markets. The scale of a mission might be too narrow for ensuring this payback.

BDI is ready to contribute to the missions’ selection process providing suggestions about technology/scientific fields of common interest, also taking into account fields and topics where existing cPPPs and JTIs are already operating. Areas that future missions could cover are for example cyber security, data analytics and Artificial Intelligence, urban regeneration, health, new welfare, digital manufacturing, energy transition, sustainable mobility, etc. In the selection of missions the risk of fragmentation will have to be avoided in order not to discourage industry participation.

Keep it simple – continue simplification Simplification should remain a main goal in FP9 as it was in Horizon 2020 as well. Although there have been quite some substantial improvements in Horizon 2020, there is still a great need to make the next Framework Programme more efficient and user friendly. A more trust-based system and risk-based approach towards the applicants and beneficiaries of FP9 must be favoured. This holds especially true as far as audit procedures are concerned.

Simplify funding schemes BDI suggests to further simplify the funding schemes in FP9. For example, by reducing the number of different funding instruments, e.g. by combining similar funding instruments.

Reduce bureaucracy The administrative burden for companies taking part in FP9 must be further reduced. It is important, for example, to reduce the number of technical documents required. The recognition of the nationally accepted and especially of the companies’ usual accounting practices must be ensured in FP9.

Especially the accounting procedures of internal costs of obtained services or products must be further simplified.

Design calls appropriately The design of calls in FP9 should be further refined. There should ideally be an adequate mix of “topdown” and “bottom-up”-calls. Top-Down calls should have a better definition of the thematic scope and desired impact but should be technology neutral, i.e. open to different technology solutions. “Bottomup” calls – e.g. the FTI – should be open to any researcher and innovator’s approach towards solving the pillars’ objective. Nevertheless, excellence and impact must always be the central criteria for granting projects.

13

German industry’s recommendations on FP9

Impressum Federation of German Industries (Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie e.V. (BDI)) Breite StraĂ&#x;e 29 10178 Berlin Germany www.bdi.eu T: +49 30 2028-0 Editor Christian Rudelt T: +49 30 2028 1572 C.Rudelt@bdi.eu

Dokumenten-Nr.: D 0941

14