Horizon 2020: Eurostars SME funding programme
Download as PPTX, PDF1 like744 views
The document outlines the 2018 Eurostars program by the Eureka Association, which focuses on funding international research and development projects driven by SMEs across 45 countries. It provides details on funding statistics, eligibility requirements, evaluation criteria, project management, and expected outcomes related to innovation and commercialization. The program emphasizes collaboration and the importance of ethical considerations in project proposals.
More Related Content
Similar to Horizon 2020: Eurostars SME funding programme (20)
Horizon 2020: Eurostars SME funding programme
- 2. 2018 EUREKA Association instruments EUREKA PROJECTS CLUSTER PROJECTS EUROSTARS PROJECTS > 45 countries
- 3. 2018 EUREKA Association 3 Joint programme between EUREKA and EU Market-oriented Bottom-up International cooperation Dedicated to R&D- performing SMEs
- 4. 2018 EUREKA Association 4 Countries 36 countries Austria Bulgaria Belgium Canada Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta The Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovak Republic Slovenia South Africa South Korea Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom
- 5. 2018 EUREKA Association 5 €1.15 billion Eurostars total public budget 2014–202075% 25% EU contribution Eurostars countries contribution =+
- 6. 2018 EUREKA Association 6 total costs of applications funded €1.3 billion number of participants 2,865 number of approved projects 899 total costs of applications €4,4 billion number of applicants 9,845 number of applications 3,104 41 countries involved 29% success rate €618M estimated public funding
- 7. 2018 EUREKA Association 7 70% 14% 10% 6% SME is always the project leader R&D-performing SMEs and SMEs University Research institute Large company
- 8. 2018 EUREKA Association 8 of the work done by SMEs 50% of participants are R&D performing SMEs 76% of SMEs have less than 50 employees 83% of SMEs workforce is dedicated to R&D activities 40%
- 9. 2018 EUREKA Association 9 SERVICE PROCESS PRODUCT Market introduction is foreseen within 2 years after project completion
- 10. 2018 EUREKA Association 10 average duration average project cost
- 11. 2018 EUREKA Association 11 Technological Areas Electronics, IT and Telecoms Technolo 31% Biological Sciences / Technologies 29% Industrial Manufacturing, Material and Transport 12%Projects submitted Energy Technology 7% Technology for Protecting Man and the Environment 6%
- 12. 2018 EUREKA Association 12 Medical / Health Related 33% Industrial Products / Manufacturing 13% Computer Related 9% Projects submitted Market Areas Energy 8% Services 8%
- 13. 2018 EUREKA Association 13 You need access to someone else’s science/technology You have a solution for someone else Access skills you don’t have Requires collaboration across the value chain Share risks
- 15. 2018 EUREKA Association 15 REGISTRATION My Eurostars CONTACT your NPC Complete the APPLICATION FORM Upload ANNEXES SUBMIT Check your eligibility! Read relevant guidelines! 1 2 3 4 5 PROJECT IDEA
- 17. Panel evaluation + ranking Ethics review Financial viability check Step four Step five Expert evaluation
- 18. Secured funding Funding synchronization and approval PRIVATEPUBLIC START
- 19. 2018 EUREKA Association 19 eligibility Project leader is an R&D- performing SME from a Eurostars country At least 2 participants • Autonomous entities • Legal entities from at least 2 Eurostars countries SMEs are in the driving seat International balance Project duration is max. 3 years Market introduction within 2 years
- 20. 20 Quality and efficiency of the implementation: basic assessment • Quality of the consortium • Added value through co-operation • Realistic and clearly defined project management & planning • Reasonable cost structure evaluation criteria Excellence: innovation and R&D Impact: market & commercialisation • Degree of innovation • New applied knowledge • Level of technical challenge • Technological achievability & risk • Market size • Market access and risk • Competitive advantage • Clear and realistic commercialisation plans • Time to market
- 21. 2018 EUREKA Association 21 ON LEVEL ON LEVEL SIMULTANEOUSLY Database of experts 3 experts 3 evaluation criteria National funding bodies (NFB) Applications financial viability check Application assessment Financial viability assessment Public funding
- 22. 2018 EUREKA Association 22 Expert application assessment Application form NFBs Financial viability assessment Criteria 1 MAX 200 2 MAX 200 3 MAX 200 MAX 600 Treshold Ranking list Rank Project Criteria 1 Criteria 2 Criteria 3 Total 1 9252 2 9856 … … 185 8954 178 90 135 403 186 9899 120 122 121 363 187 9134 121 95 127 343 … … • Only projects rated above the quality thresholds are recommended for funding • The funding of projects is following the ranking list until national budget exhaustion • The funding of partners is based on the national funding rules
- 23. 2018 EUREKA Association 23 PROJECT R&D SME SME University Large company
- 24. 2018 EUREKA Secretariat Verifies the respect of ethical principles and legislation Consideration for all Eurostars projects on the ranking list Ethics review Each project application must: Identify and describe any potential ethical issues Detail how they plan to address them Human embryos & foetuses Human beings Human cells or tissues Personal data Animals Non-EU countries Environment, health & safety Dual use Misuse and security
- 25. 2018 EUREKA Association 25 VERY LIKELY LESS LIKELY Ethics clearance The project proposal does not raise ethics issues or the ethics issues have been properly addressed Conditional clearance The ethics report will list 'ethics requirements' which become contractual obligations. They may include: • supplying further information/documents • adjusting methodology so as to comply with ethical principles and relevant legislation • an ethics check • appointing an independent ethics advisor or ethics board (possibly with a task to report on compliance with ethics requirements) No ethics clearance When a project proposal shows major ethical flaws, it will not be given ethics clearance, meaning that the proposal may not eligible for funding and will be rejected
- 28. 2018 EUREKA Association Allow time for necessary preparation (partner search, project proposal, consortium agreement…) Build up a « win-win » cooperation Show complementarities and added value of trans-national partnership during and after the project Demonstrate each party’s management, scientific and technical skills as well as its available financial resources for the project Define success indicators for technological performance as well as the commercial and financial targets to achieve Demonstrate clearly why the projects should be financed Highlight the risks and the strategic character of the project in terms of expected commercial and financial impact Is it value for money? In austerity, tax payers money is a scarce resource Demonstrate the fact that you have good financial health and have considered all of your options. If you are too risky, you might not be able to access support.
- 29. 2018 EUREKA Association Define a methodical approach in line with partnership, budget and time limit set for the completion of the project and the marketing of its results Point out the innovative nature of the proposal submitted Present new industrial applications and their impact on the industry sector and relevant markets Who are you? Describe the benefits of this partnership, the added value that each organisation brings? Focus on the project methodology (objectives, means, results) Appropriate and realistic cost breakdown Analyse the risks. How will you mitigate against them? Promote the key elements the evaluators are looking for and ask an objective party to read it Proof read it – this is the cheapest way of making it better. Don’t allow yourself to be surprised by anything Do your homework Speak to your National Project Coordinator (NPC) Don’t forget your market (it sounds strange, but people do) Product plans, exploitation plans, commercialisation strategy. Analysis and comparison with state of the art. Barriers to market entry? Competitive advantages? Realistic market share? Will you actually make ROI? Or how to protect it – Good IPR analysis/strategies are rare
- 30. 2018 EUREKA Association 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 14 15 16 17 18 21 22 23 24 25 27 S M T W T F S 12 26 February 2019 28 1 2 3 4 65 7 8 9 27 28 7 11 20 10 19 29 30 31 3104 Applications 899 Approved projects 325 Applications Cut-Off 10 Cut-Off 1 to Cut-Off 9 Cut-Off 11 28 13
- 32. 2018 EUREKA Association 32 social media @EUREKAESE @EUREKA_NETWORK @eureka-secretariat
Editor's Notes
- #14: 1. Key aspects of EUREKA’s USP were reaffirmed by project participants 2. Around two-thirds of participants joined EUREKA projects in order to boost international co-operation or create new business opportunities 3. Case studies found that a high degree of flexibility, freedom to create consortia and a strong bottom-up approach as key drivers of demand for EUREKA’s offering
- #17: For Eurostars, the evaluation phase covers the period from the submission deadline to the dispatch of letters confirming which projects will receive public support. Only the very best applications will successfully navigate the various stages and receive public support. After the application submission deadline, a centralised evaluation process starts, managed by the EUREKA Secretariat (ESE). Completeness check: One of the first activities is to check whether applications are complete (have all sections been completed, is the application form written in English, are all of the required annexes in place, has each organisation signed and returned the commitment and signature form, and when necessary, the SME declaration within the specified timeframe?). The failure of one applicant organisation to supply all of its required documents will result in the rejection of the entire application. Eligibility check: Eurostars applications must meet all eligibility criteria before the two-step evaluation process starts, otherwise they will not be put forward for evaluation and will be excluded. The failure of any single criterion will result in the rejection of the entire application. Expert evaluation & Financial viability check: Once checked for completeness and compliance with eligibility criteria, applications are evaluated. Each application is evaluated by three independent experts, commissioned by the EUREKA Secretariat. At the same time, at national level, participating Eurostars countries (National funding bodies) are responsible for the assessment of the financial viability of a project participant to finance the activities declared in the Eurostars Application Form according to applicable national regulations. Panel evaluation + ranking: the results of the check: The applications which pass the first expert evaluation step are put forward for ranking by the Independent expert panel (IEP). Each application is collectively reviewed in an IEP meeting in Brussels, where the panelists meet to discuss the relative strengths and weaknesses of each application against the set criteria and each of the other applications. It is their job to identify the very best applications, and then rank them in descending order of quality, thereby producing a ranking list.
- #20: Eurostars applications must meet all eligibility criteria otherwise they will not be put forward for evaluation and will be excluded. 1st box: Project leader must be an R&D-performing SME from a Eurostars country (E1, E2) 2nd box: The consortium must include at least two partners independent from each other and established in at least two different Eurostars countries. Each participant must be a legal entity as defined by the legislation of the country where it is hosted. (E3, E4, E11) 3rd box: SMEs are in the driving seat: The work has to be done in-house by R&D performing SMEs, meaning that the budget (excluding subcontracting) of the R&D performing SME(s) located in a Eurostars country(s) has to be equal to at least 50% of the total project budget (E5)
- #21: - These are the three evaluation criteria, which are inline with all the other H2020 evaluation criteria. - As you can see we have a first criteria that is the « »quality and efficiency of the implementation » that assess …… - A second criteria called « excellence » that ….. - And a third and last criteria that is the « impact »
- #22: Eurostars applications undergo a two-step evaluation process: Step one: remote assessment of each application by three independent experts, matched to applications according to their technical and market expertise to provide objective evaluations consisting of scores, justifications, comments and recommendations against a set of standard criteria. There are three major criteria and for each sub criteria experts must provide score. Only if at least two of the three experts agree that at least two of the three criteria are satisfactory, will the application advance to the IEP for ranking. At the same time, at national level, participating Eurostars countries (National funding bodies) are responsible for the assessment of the financial viability of a project participant to finance the activities declared in the Eurostars Application Form according to applicable national regulations. Financial viability or lack thereof, is not an eligibility criterion. It does not mean that a project is automatically excluded, but a negative assessment could be one of the determining factors for the panel evaluation.
- #23: The resulsts of the remote evaluation of the three experts and of the financial viability assessment is provided, along with the AP to an Indepent Expert Panel. And here starts the second and last evaluation phase. The IEP evaluates the proposals according to the three evaluation criteria but with two different quality threeshold. A proposal is considered approved by the IEP if it reaches at least 120 points in all three criteria and a overal score of 402 points (total score). A final ranking list is produced. The project that are above both quality threshold are recommended for funding. This list is important because the NFB follow the ranking list for funding until the national budget exhaustion. The allocation of budget also follow the national budget rules and procedures.
- #24: Unlike the application and the evaluation the funding is decentralized. The participants dont sign a funding agreement with EUREKA Secretariat but each organziation sign its own financial agremeent with its NFB. Thats why it is important to inform you before to apply, in order to know the percentage you can get, the eligile costs for your specific type of organization in your country. (On avarage, 50 % of eligible project costs are covered by public funds, consisting of national and EU funding. The EU contribution amounts to about 20 % of national funds.)
- #25: All the projects that are in the ranking list and therefore reccomended for funding have to pass through a so called « Ethics Review ». The projects are once again evaluated by a different panel of experts. This is to verify if the projects present potential ethics issues that do not respect ethical principles and legislation. In the AP you have to indicate also if your project may raise ethical issues and how you address them. The main ethics categories are: …..
- #26: The output of the ethics review could be one of the following: a) ethics clearance: that means that no ethics issue related to the project and no additional documents will be asked to the participants. b) conditional clearance: not impossible to overcome. Some requirements are asked to the organizations participating into the project. Ethics check: another evaluation will be performed in the next ethics panel (requirements analyzed) . It is a case by case analysis. c) No ethics clearance: this doesnt mean that the project is rejected but put on hold till the participants can clarify the ethics issues. Less likely that the project get no ethics clearance.
- #27: The output of the ethics review could be one of the following: a) ethics clearance: that means that no ethics issue related to the project and no additional documents will be asked to the participants. b) conditional clearance: not impossible to overcome. Some requirements are asked to the organizations participating into the project. Ethics check: another evaluation will be performed in the next ethics panel (requirements analyzed) . It is a case by case analysis. c) No ethics clearance: this doesnt mean that the project is rejected but put on hold till the participants can clarify the ethics issues. Less likely that the project get no ethics clearance.
- #28: The output of the ethics review could be one of the following: a) ethics clearance: that means that no ethics issue related to the project and no additional documents will be asked to the participants. b) conditional clearance: not impossible to overcome. Some requirements are asked to the organizations participating into the project. Ethics check: another evaluation will be performed in the next ethics panel (requirements analyzed) . It is a case by case analysis. c) No ethics clearance: this doesnt mean that the project is rejected but put on hold till the participants can clarify the ethics issues. Less likely that the project get no ethics clearance.