The role of the European Parliament with regard to the Horizon 2020 Interim Evaluation

Transcription

1 The role of the European Parliament with regard to the Horizon 2020 Interim Evaluation Sonia Maria Sanchez Gomez Assistant to MEP Cabezón Ruiz Rapporteur for the H2020 Interim Evaluation, EP ITRE

2 INDEX I. The role of EP in the EU political arena II. The EP interim evaluation report Scope, focus and main points Timetable Sources of information Documents of the EC, Council, EP, etc. Background study EPRS Mission: Spain/Portugal and Germany/Poland + visit to Univ. Ghent Hearing November Interviews Working Group on Horizon 2020

3 I. The role of EP in the EU political arena European Council (summit) European Parliament Council of Ministers (The Council) European Commission Court of Justice Court of Auditors Economic and Social Committee Committee of the Regions European Investment Bank Agencies European Central Bank

4 I. The role of EP in the EU political arena - The European Parliament - Organisation President: Mr. Martin Schulz Members: The European Parliament is made up of 751 Members elected in the 28 Member States Political groups: 8 Committees: In order to do the preparatory work for Parliament's plenary sittings, the Members are divided up among a number of specialised standing committees. There are 20 parliamentary committees. A committee consists of between 25 and 71 MEPs, and has a chair, a bureau and a secretariat. The political make-up of the committees reflects that of the plenary assembly. ITRE Committee is the Committee dealing with Research files. The parliamentary committees meet once or twice a month in Brussels. Their debates are held in public. Intergroups Delegations

5 I. The role of EP in the EU political arena - The European Parliament - Organisation Decides EU laws and budget together with the Council of Ministers Democratic supervision of all the EU s work Number of members elected in each country Austria - 18 Belgium - 21 Bulgaria - 17 Croatia - 11 Cyprus - 6 Czech Republic - 21 Denmark - 13 Estonia - 6 Finland - 13 France - 74 Germany - 96 Greece - 21 Hungary - 21 Ireland - 11 Italy - 73 Latvia - 8 Lithuania - 11 Luxembourg - 6 Malta - 6 Netherlands - 26 Poland - 51 Portugal - 21 Romania - 32 Slovakia - 13 Slovenia - 8 Spain - 54 Sweden - 20 United Kingdom - 73 Total - 751

6 I. The role of EP in the EU political arena - The European Parliament - Organisation Number of seats in the European Parliament per political group (July 2015) Total: 751

7 I. The role of EP in the EU political arena - The European Parliament legislative and non-legislative process How the EP participates in the legislative and non-legislative process? Non legislative INI (own-initiative) reports and Implementation reports Both reports are an important working tool and political instrument for the European Parliament. These reports: Pave the way for new legislative proposals, exploring diverse topics of interest to Members. Control the implementation of legislation. Respond to Commission communications. Express Parliament s position on different aspects of European integration. They are thus important tools in the early phase of the legislative cycle trying to shape the agenda.

8 I. The role of EP in the EU political arena - The European Parliament legislative and non-legislative process How the EP participates in the legislative and non-legislative process? Legislative reports Citizens, interest groups, experts: discuss, consult Commission: makes formal proposal PARLIAMENT and Council of Ministers: decide jointly National or local authorities: implement Commission and Court of Justice: monitor implementation

9 I. The role of EP in the EU political arena - The European Parliament legislative and non-legislative process CAN EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT MAKE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES? Achievements during H2020 negotiations Ensured that around 750 million of Horizon 2020 budget were allocated to "spreading excellence and widening participation". Parliament also ensured that more than 400 million were allocated to the program "Science with and for society" to strengthen the role of science in society. MEPs intensified controls over EU funds for public-private partnerships and ensured that all scientific publications funded by the EU were accessible to the public. They also voted for the European Institute of Technology (EIT) having its own budget ( 2.47bn).

10 II. The EP interim evaluation report A. Scope, focus and main points Objective: to give political guidance to the European Commission for its communication on the interim evaluation of H2020 according to Article 32 of Regulation 1291/2013 establishing the H2020 program. This policy orientation should be considered: In the H2020 third strategic program covering the period , correcting and guiding the failures that are detected in its implementation. In the elaboration of the ninth R & D program, which will replace H2020. The interim evaluation shall assess the progress of the different parts of Horizon 2020 against all of the following: The achievements of the objectives of Horizon 2020 and continued relevance of all related measures; The efficiency and use of resources; The Union added value. Certain points of importance: Complementarity and synergies with other programs and EU funds. Art. 13 and 20. Gender equality. 16 Art. The open science. Art 18. Transfer of research from universities to industry. Other issues that deserve to be reinforced or questioned in the report are: The research careers among young people. More interdisciplinarity. Widening of the topics making them more open that would mean greater freedom for scientists and participants. Fragmentation of Europe N / S and E / W. Model of loans versus grants model.

11 II. The EP interim evaluation report B. Timetable and involved MEPs Provisional timetable ITRE Consideration of draft report 22/23 March 2017 Deadline for tabling amendments 31 March 2017 Consideration of amendments (optional) 22/25 April 2017 Vote ITRE 29/30 May 2017 Vote plenary June/July 2017 Rapporteur S&D: Soledad CABEZON RUIZ Assistant: Sonia SANCHEZ GOMEZ S&D Group Advisor: Teresa MERGULHAO ITRE staff: Julia PRIKOSZOVITS Vanessa AULEHLA Assistant: Perlie YU/Karin HALLER Shadows EPP: Barbara KUDRYCKA ECR: Anneleen VAN BOSSUYT ALDE: Lieve WIERINCK GUE: Marisa MATIAS VERTS/ALE: Ernest MARAGALL EFDD: David BORELLI ENF: Nicolas BAY

12 II. The EP interim evaluation report C. Sources of information Documentation Documents of the EC (legislative package and others), council conclusions, EP documents and stakeholders positions For example: Draft results brochure: two years in. Annual Monitoring Report Key findings of the university, industry and RPO study Key findings on FP7 ex post evaluation on industry university cooperation Council conclusions on FP7 ex post on loans vs grants Bratislava Declaration of Young researchers Report from the Commission on the implementation of the strategy for international cooperation in R&I

13 II. The EP interim evaluation report C. Sources of information Background study of EPRS Independent, objective and authoritative information Study on the European Implementation Assessment on Horizon 2020 Theme Estimated number of pages Introduction containing general information on programme and its position in the EU policies, as well as general information on the implementation Excellent Science, with special attention to: - European Research Council (ERC) - Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) - Research infrastructures Industrial Leadership, with special attention to: - Information and Communication Technologies - Innovation in SMEs Societal challenges, with special attention to: - Health, demographic changes and wellbeing (SC1) - Secure, clean and efficient energy (SC 3) - Society Europe in a changing world (SC 6)

14 II. The EP interim evaluation report C. Sources of information Missions and visits Missions: ES/PT (2nd-4th November) DE/PL (February 2017) Visits: BE: University of Ghent (24th January)

15 II. The EP interim evaluation report C. Sources of information Hearing 29th November

16 II. The EP interim evaluation report C. Sources of information Interviews and positions Interviews: Commissioner, General Director DG Research, President ERC, Representatives of PPPs, Universities, networks of RTO, attachés of Permanent Representations, Political representatives, etc. - register of transparency Positions: Some stakeholders sent their positions, recommendations and concerns to Ms. Cabezón

17 II. The EP interim evaluation report Members: C. Sources of information H2020 Working Group Christian Ehler, EPP Anneleen VAN BOSSUYT, ECR Lieve WIERINCK, ALDE Marisa Matías, GUE-NGL Claude Turmes, Greens EFA David BORRELLI, EFDD Barbara Kappel, ENF Soledad Cabezón Ruiz, S&D Some of the seminars: EFSI proposal and its impact on Horizon th January H2020 and EFSI: Budgetary implications in 2016 and beyond. 8th July Health challenge in the Horizon 2020 programme. 9th December Implementation of the Energy challenge and the climate objective in Horizon th February SME policies in H2020 (the goal of 20% SME participation, the SME instrument, FTI, access to finance, links and synergies with COSME and EFSI). 15th March Open access - publications and data pilots - Data mining - EU cloud. 19th April Overview of PPPs and JTIs, including KICs in H2020. Does it work?. 15th June Synergies between H2020 and Structural Funds, in particular the Seal of Excellence Initiative and coordinated agendas in the context of ERA. 14th July Social sciences/creative and cultural industries in H th September ERC, Marie Curie and FET. 8th November 2016.

18 II. The EP interim evaluation report C. Sources of information H2020 Working Group Conclusions: Low success rates: average success rate is down from 20% in FP7 to 14% in Horizon Nevertheless private sector participation increased. There is increased proposal preparation time for participants to comply with the selection criteria Low participation of 13 countries: Both the first analysis of H2020 and the ex post evaluation of FP7 proved it. Oversubscription: average 8 times the available budget under H2020 (5.5 times under FP7). Low pre-financing, threatening project implementation, especially for SMEs. Validation SME status: the process to validate the status of SME is too long. Unfriendly design participant portal. The composition of the advisory groups of experts should be more balanced and reflect all necessary to take into account the dimensions of research and innovation skills. Need of an Open Science system. Insufficient clarity in the desired overall impact of research on society and politics. Improved balance between the real needs of society and the challenges of the program. More information on the participation of third countries and the availability of funds for international cooperation. Improved H2020 relationship with the National Research Programs. Better use of Cordis database.

19 Contact details Sonia SÁNCHEZ GÓMEZ Office of MEP Soledad CABEZÓN RUIZ Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialist & Democrats European Parliament BRU - ASP 11G STR - SDM G sonia.sanchezgomez@ep.europa.eu