Interim Evaluation of the Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking ( ) operating under Horizon Experts Group Report

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Interim Evaluation of the Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking ( ) operating under Horizon Experts Group Report"

Transcription

1 Interim Evaluation of the Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking ( ) operating under Horizon 2020 Experts Group Report Written by: Cheryl Atkinson Helge Pfeiffer Piotr Doerffer Expert group: Cheryl Atkinson, Helge Pfeiffer, Piotr Doerffer, Heather Allen, Michael Dooms June 2017

2 Clean Sky 2 Interim Evaluation Report 30 June 2017 Interim Evaluation of the Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking ( ) operating under Horizon 2020 Experts Group Report Written by Cheryl Atkinson Helge Pfeiffer Piotr Doerffer Expert group Cheryl Atkinson, Helge Pfeiffer, Piotr Doerffer, Heather Allen, Michael Dooms 2

3 Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union. Freephone number (*): * The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you). LEGAL NOTICE This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. More information on the European Union is available on the Internet ( Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017 ISBN: doi: / KI EN-N European Union, 2017 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

4 Clean Sky 2 Interim Evaluation Report 30 June 2017 EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General for Research and Innovation Directorate H Transport Unit H.3 Aviation Contact: Francky Callewaert francky.callewaert@ec.europa.eu European Commission B-1049 Brussels 4

5 Table of Contents 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION BACKGROUND TO THE INITIATIVE DESCRIPTION OF THE INITIATIVE The Clean Sky Initiative Intervention logic Consistency of the JU with EU s general transport objectives White Papers on transport 2001 and Vision 2020 and Flightpath ACARE BASELINE EVALUATION QUESTIONS METHOD/PROCESS FOLLOWED PROCESS/METHODOLOGY LIMITATIONS IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CLEAN SKY JOINT TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE IMPLEMENTATION IN GENERAL STRUCTURE OF CLEAN SKY 2 JU BUDGET ALLOCATION LEADERS AND AFFILIATES CORE PARTNERS CALLS FOR PARTNERS ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS MAIN ACHIEVEMENTS AND EFFECTIVENESS OF IMPLEMENTATION Main Achievements Direct achievements IADP LPA IADP Regional aircraft (Reg) IADP Rotocraft ITD Airframe ITD Engines ITD SYS TA ECO Design TA Small Air transport TA Technical evaluator ACARE Objectives Impact Effectiveness of implementation CLEAN SKY 2 JOINT UNDERTAKING'S PERFORMANCE IN Clean Sky 2 JU mission and governance Governing board (GB) The JU Programme Office IADP and ITD Steering Committees States Representatives group (SRG) Scientific Committee (SciCom) Other Stakeholders Conclusions on Mission and Governance... 60

6 Clean Sky 2 Interim Evaluation Report 30 June Operational effectiveness CS Programme Management Clean Sky Quality Partners and Research CS Communication Operational efficiency EU ADDED VALUE COHERENCE RELEVANCE CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS: THE DELEGATION AGREEMENT ADMINISTRATIVE SIMPLIFICATION THE H2020 AERONAUTICS INNOVATION PIPELINE STIMULATE SUBCONTRACTING AN HOLISTIC APPROACH FOR AERONAUTICS RESEARCH INCREASED TRANSPARENCY INCREASE INSIGHT SYNERGY WITH NATIONAL RESEARCH PROMOTE ECONOMIC IMPACT ENERGIZE AND ENABLE ACADEMIC PARTICIPATION ANNEXES CONSIDERATIONS ON STATE AID FOR PRIVATE COMPANIES AND THE 5% DILEMMA BIBLIOGRAPHY INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED ABBREVIATIONS TABLE OF FIGURES TABLE OF TABLES DISCUSSION PAPER CROSS TJUS LEARNINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE INTERIM AND FINAL EVALUATIONS OF CLEAN SKY 1&2, SESAR(2020) AND SHIFT2RAIL ANNEX COORDINATOR SURVEY ANNEX - SURVEY PUBLIC CONSULTATION

7 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Scope This document presents the results of the first Interim Evaluation of the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking (CSJU) established during the Horizon 2020 Programme ( ), carried out in parallel with the Final Evaluation of the predecessor Seventh Framework Clean Sky 1 programme. These evaluations were mandated by the regulation establishing the CSJU and was conducted by a team of independent experts from January 2017 to June The evaluation was carried out following the Terms of Reference of the Evaluators retention contract, which addressed the requirements of the revised guidelines of the Better Regulation Package as well as the main evaluation criteria: relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, coherence and EU added value. In addition, the criteria: openness, transparency and research quality are considered. The evaluation is intended to inform the European Commission s views on the effectiveness of the CSJU and shape the implementation of future Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) for the purpose of promoting R&D in the aeronautics domain. The Clean Sky Research Programme The CSJU is responsible for the execution and management of a multidisciplinary research program focusing on opportunities to accelerate the industrial implementation of green technologies in air transport vehicles. Its approach is to use demonstrators (TRL 6) to validate technological concepts that can meet the societal objective of mitigating the environmental impact of air transportation but are beyond the research investment capacity of industry to develop. The intention was to pave the way for evolutionary concepts to replace the normal incremental product development strategy. The objectives for Clean Sky 2 were based on the Societal Challenges of Decision 2013/742/EU, specifically the Challenge under Part III to contribute to improving the environmental impact of aeronautical technologies, including those relating to small aviation, as well as to developing a strong and globally competitive aeronautical industry and supply chain in Europe. The Joint Technical Programme [2] of Clean Sky 2, the most comprehensive public document describing the whole scope of the CS2 programme, explicitly states The renewed ACARE SRIA was completed in 2012, with ambitious goals for a sustainable and competitive aviation sector. These include a 75% reduction in CO 2 emissions, a 90% reduction in NO x and 65% in perceived noise by 2050 compared to 2000 levels, and 4 hour door-to-door journey for 90% of European travellers These substantial emissions reductions and mobility goals require radically new aircraft technology inserted into new aircraft configurations. Building on the substantial gains made in Clean Sky, Clean Sky 2 aims at meeting the overall high-level goals with respect to energy efficiency and environmental performances Demonstrators were defined for the most used vehicles in the Air Transport market the large passenger aircraft, the regional aircraft and the rotorcraft and were configured for laboratory, ground or flight test validation depending on the technologies incorporated. The technologies were developed by discipline based units for air vehicle (structure, aerodynamics etc.), engines and systems. An Eco Design focus group developed life cycle analysis tools and influenced all of the development work. A Technology Evaluator tracked the extent to which the environmental objectives could be considered achievable. What are the main achievements of Clean Sky 2? 7

8 Clean Sky 2 Interim Evaluation Report 30 June 2017 The CSJU was established as an EU body subject to EU Financial Regulations, with funding from the Horizon 2020 budget appropriation of 1,755.5 M allocated for up to 40% to the co-opted members (the IADP/ITD Leaders and their Affiliates) and for up to 30% to the Core Partners that were joined as members following open calls for Core Partners early in the CS2 programme. All of these participating entities match the EC contribution to their scope of work with in kind contributions. The remaining 30% (526.6 M ) were allocated to supporting partners on the basis of open calls for topics contributing to each of the core research areas and more than 600 participants are expected to be joined to the CSJU. As in CS1, a high quality of research capability was realised in a geographical distribution that approximated the economic contribution in aeronautics. A good balance of industrial, research and aeronautics institutes of higher education is being achieved and the high engagement of SME s realised in CS1, as a result of the characteristics of demonstrator projects, appears to be continuing. Universities that have enriched their curriculum with the capacity to model, build and test innovative parts that were integrated in the demonstrators continue their involvement and new industrial research partners will augment their product development capability in executing their part of the Clean Sky programme. The Clean Sky 2 programme will host the final demonstration phase of flight test for the highly ambitious Counter Rotating Open Rotor engine and the Laminar Flow wing developed in Clean Sky 1. Clean Sky 1 also contributed a broad range of opportunities for future development which are being investigated and progressed into the demonstrator configurations that will be validated in Clean Sky 2. At the time of writing most of the opportunities have been assessed and the down selection for development form the basis of the detailed planning. What are the main findings of the evaluation? Clean Sky has achieved widespread recognition around the world for the unprecedented level of collaboration of its research participants in a focused and coherent research programme that significantly reduces the fragmentation of other funding instruments. The PPP approach is effective in the governance and the execution of the programme through the CSJU Programme Office. Its dedicated support to the members in administrative matters and the monitoring and interventions of its technically competent project officers provide opportunities for improved research management that are highlighted in the recommendations. A well-crafted Communication Strategy mobilises participation and broadcasts Clean Sky activities and accomplishments leading to a focusing of national and industrial research priorities in its wake. In terms of the main evaluation criteria: Effectiveness The relatively smooth transition from Clean Sky 1 promises to continue the remarkable achievements that have been made there, both in technological advances and in the realisation of a well functioning partnership in the programme execution. This is largely attributable to the recognition by all stakeholders that Clean Sky is the right approach to the coordination of demonstrator oriented aeronautics research and their resulting dedication to making it work. The continuation a JU to realise the ACARE Strategic Research agenda environmental objectives sustains the momentum for a focused coordinated response to the need for the greening of air transport. The alignment of the Clean Sky multipoint research agenda with the product development strategies of its members, both long and short term, continue to motivate their investment in, and wholehearted support for, the Clean Sky programme. The Commission policy of integrating the diversity of Horizon 2020 funding instruments in a single process infrastructure has greatly complicated the transition from Clean Sky 1 and is eroding the effectiveness of the tailored administrative approaches that supported the predecessor programme. 8

9 Efficiency The Clean Sky programme office has a broad portfolio of operational tasks, related to the administration of the programme participation and the monitoring of research progress, combined with ad hoc responsibilities such as establishing the ESIF relationship. The rigorous review schedule, the high frequency of meetings inherent in the governance structure, and the geographical reach of the programme participation places a high travel burden and demands almost 24/7 reachability for the staff members, who fortunately all think they have the best job in the world. Overall, the Clean Sky Programme Office performs remarkably well and efficiently. Relevance Political developments underwrite the continuing relevance of reducing the environmental impact of air transport. The adoption in 2015 of the historic Paris Agreement and its ratification in November 2016 underscores the global intention to resist climate change. The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) agreement in February 2016 on a CO2 standard for new aircraft, followed by their accord on global market-based measure to control CO2 emissions from international aviation in October, highlight an emerging regulatory framework. It is felt that regulation will be instrumental in stimulating industrial uptake of the most ambitious Clean Sky accomplishments. The radical, disruptive technology lines that the Clean Sky programme has pursued are the foundations for aircraft industry product steps that skip a generation of evolutionary development and make the Clean Sky concepts the new normal in the operating fleet and the biggest challenge is to ready them for the next plus 1 aircraft fleet renewal cycle. The policy and rationale that underlay the Clean Sky programme in 2007, and its continuation in 2014, are still in line with the current challenges in the Air Transport sector and the portfolio of tasks entrusted to the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking, and the effective execution of them in Clean Sky 1, continues to underwrite the PPP approach. EU Added Value The European Union is the only place on the planet that could have realised Clean Sky and the JTI approach is the only way that the critical mass for the success of the Clean Sky research agenda could have been obtained. The JTI approach has been able to focus the aeronautical research community on the goal of mitigating the environment impact of aviation, a mission that would not have been undertaken based only on market incentives, on a much larger scale than would otherwise be realised. The European Parliament has noted that "the concept of European added value must not be limited to advanced cooperation between Members States but should also contain a visionary' aspect". [3] There is no doubt that that Clean Sky research agenda, which targeted to double the rate of progress in fuel consumption reduction and half the time to market for the resulting technologies, is ambitious. Coherence Four aspects of the coherence of the Clean Sky programme have been evaluated. the internal coherence in the Clean Sky programme itself is very high and, in spite of the complexity of the programme interfaces, the participants have a common vision H2020 collaborative research is not providing sufficient support for bottom up project proposals that fill the innovation pipeline with ideas that, if shown to be feasible in L1 research, may be developed to a higher TRL in Clean Sky. 9

10 Clean Sky 2 Interim Evaluation Report 30 June 2017 There have in the past been difficulties in implementing a working relationship that achieves the necessary complementarity and synergy with SESAR and this relationship has been improved in the transition to Clean Sky 2. Coordination with national research programs has not been explicitly accomplished although anecdotally such alignment is reported. As Clean Sky has not been granted the monopoly that SESAR has in ATM research a persuasive approach to coordination with national research programs is the only recourse. Openness and Transparency The CSJU has been implemented in an open and transparent manner. The Governing Board records are complete and publically available as are the Annual reports, which have developed over time to give high quality insight into the programme. Clean Sky activities and accomplishments are well promoted. The website and social media presence has made great strides in providing broad visibility of the programme activity and will target improved accessibility technical documentation. Research Quality The Clean Sky PPP is clearly achieving its objective of grouping the best quality aeronautics research entities in a programme of common European interest with a clear relationship to the societal challenge of climate change and benefitting the competitiveness of European aeronautics stakeholders. Clean Sky has produced world class Aeronautical Research, Development Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) that enables promising technologies for the European Aeronautical Industry to be developed and tested in large scale demonstrators. Recommendations The reviewers chose to offer a top ten list of recommendations from the variety of critical observations made in the evaluation and defer to the greater expertise of the CSJU in developing specific solutions. Three of the recommendations are related to day-to-day operations, both present and future: the need to reconsider the forced implementation of H2020 one size fits all infrastructure which is detrimental to the operational effectivity of the CSJU, the opportunity in the JU approach for a trust based relationship that can reduce the administrative burden for beneficiaries and the suggestion that many of the open call topics are inefficient use of the complex call process and subcontracting should be stimulated. A further three recommendations address the participation of the broader aeronautical research community in Clean Sky: the need to replace the collaborate research shortfall of the H2020 programme with open calls from within the existing Clean Sky programme, the advantage to having the JU operate the full spectrum of aeronautics research in future programmes as a way of balancing participation across the European aeronautics research spectrum and the incentive to take measures that cultivate academic participation in Clean Sky and ensure the future engagement of our best and brightest in our industry. The remaining four recommendations address the quality of research management by the CSJU. The achievement of the Clean Sky objectives can be strengthened through better synergy with nationally funded research, we advocate the refinement of the CSJU in programme monitoring to include measures of the ability of the partners to both choose high quality research targets as well as to accomplish them (where accomplishment should be considered to include the economic impact realised through projected as well as actual exploitation.) These advances in research performance insight should be accompanied by greater transparency in the flow of funding for a comprehensive view of the gains being realised by public investment in European aeronautics research. 10

11 We will trust that our reflections above are of influence in the evolution of Clean Sky 2 and the definition of a potential successor aeronautics research programme based on the Clean Sky experience and expertise. 11

12 Clean Sky 2 Interim Evaluation Report 30 June INTRODUCTION 2.1 Purpose of the evaluation Article 11 of the COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 558/2014 [1] establishing the Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking provided for the external reporting for the Clean Sky programme. In addition to annual reports on the progress achieved to the European Parliament and to the Council, two interim evaluations and a final evaluation, carried out with the support of external experts, are prescribed. This first interim review, carried out in conjunction with the final review of the Clean Sky 1 (CS1) programme [4], will also contribute to the H2020 Interim Evaluation. Detailed and thoughtful guidance for the evaluation was provided by the European Commission ( Commission ) Directorate-General for Research & Innovation, Transport (H) in an appendix to the retention contract for the selected experts [5]. As the first interim evaluation, carried out just two years into the programme, the progress made in achieving the objectives set for the Clean Sky 2 (CS2) programme and the extent to which the CSJU was managed and operated efficiently are the central themes. There is less emphasis on the technical achievements, which are rather limited at this early stage. In addition, an assessment of the openness and transparency with which the CS2 programme is being conducted will reflect on the advances made since the CS1 programme was implemented in As well as influencing the ongoing operation of the CS2 programme, the results of this evaluation will also be used to improve the implementation of the Joint Undertakings in general, and contribute to the formation and the ex-ante impact assessment of the possible next generation JUs. The results of this evaluation will be used by the Commission to inform the European Parliament and Council, national authorities, the research community and other stakeholders of the achievements and outcomes realised by the Clean Sky 2 JU operating under Horizon Scope of the evaluation The scope of the evaluation covers the process of the transition from Clean Sky 1 to Clean Sky 2 and the early achievements in CS2. It will target a helicopter view of the life cycle of the Clean Sky 2 programme evolution thus far. It presents the incentives for the initiative and discusses the implementation of the Clean Sky 2 Council Regulation with attention to the adjustments that were needed to accommodate the new H2020 framework. A best effort has been made to ground the observations and conclusions in this report in the documented evidence from the Clean Sky 2 JTI but it also includes personal perceptions obtained through stakeholder interviews. It has been a great honour to conduct this evaluation and the reviewers are grateful for the time and care that has been taken by the Commission, the JU staff and other stakeholders to provide the information we requested and thoughtful, well considered responses to our many questions. We are in awe of the openness and honesty of all of the stakeholders we engaged with in the course of this exercise. While we cannot claim in any sense to have fully evaluated the Clean Sky 2 programme and presented in this report all of the nuances that influenced its execution, we sincerely hope that we have highlighted those aspects that have most significantly impacted the aeronautical research community and the public trustees that have shown their confidence in the cooperativeness and professionalism of this community by renewing their investment in the Clean Sky 2 JTI. 12

13 3. BACKGROUND TO THE INITIATIVE 3.1 Description of the initiative Joint Technology Initiatives (JTIs) were a major new feature of the seventh framework programme (FP7), introduced to support key areas of research and technological development that can contribute to Europe s competitiveness and quality of life by providing for Community contribution to the establishment of long term public private partnerships (PPP). In Horizon 2020 they were continued as Joint Undertakings (JUs) that are founded on the provision, under Article 187 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU)[6], that the Union may set up Joint Undertakings or any other structure necessary for the efficient execution of Union research, technological development and demonstration programmes and are Union bodies under Article 209 of the EU Financial Regulation. The Clean Sky 2 JU was established in Regulation No 558/2014 [1] of 6 May The JTIs under FP7 originally emerged from the European Technology Platforms (ETPs), identified for Aeronautics in the Clean Sky regulation as the Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research in Europe (ACARE) and are described in the FP7 council decision [7] as «These initiatives, mainly resulting from the work of European technology platforms and covering one or a small number of selected aspects of research in their field, will combine private sector investment and national and European public funding, including grant funding from the Research Framework Programme and loan finance from the European Investment Bank.» Horizon 2020 continued the FP7 JTIs without specific new provisions on size, scope and purpose, but with options to adapt their structure. The public-private partnerships in the form of Joint Technology Initiatives (JTIs) launched under the Seventh Framework Programme may be continued using structures better suited to their purpose. [8] at (40) as reflected in article 25 of the H2020 Establishment act [8] The Clean Sky Initiative The original, principal objectives of the original Clean Sky JTI, as captured in the founding regulation [9], were: To provide integration and demonstration at the level of the system as a whole to decrease the risk for private investment in developing new environmentally friendly aeronautics products. To accelerate the development of Air Transport technologies to realise the earliest possible deployment of contributions to Europe s strategic environmental and social priorities. To ensure the coordinated use and efficient management of the funds assigned to the Clean Sky JTI. These are reflected in the first objective of the Clean Sky 2 Council regulation [1] at (2), which addresses the finalisation of the research activities started in Clean Sky 1. a) to contribute to the finalisation of research activities initiated under Regulation (EC) No 71/2008 and to the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013, and in particular the Smart, Green and Integrated Transport Greening of air transport remains a key objective, including in the small aviation market, and the targets for the key environmental parameters (CO 2, NO x and noise) are revised and expressed as the gain to be realised relative to a 2014 technology baseline. In addition, the aspect of the global competitiveness of the industry has become a Clean Sky 2 objective [1] at (2). Challenge under Part III Societal Challenges of Decision 2013/743/EU; 13

14 Clean Sky 2 Interim Evaluation Report 30 June 2017 b) to contribute to improving the environmental impact of aeronautical technologies, including those relating to small aviation, as well as to developing a strong and globally competitive aeronautical industry and supply chain in Europe. This can be realised through speeding up the development of cleaner air transport technologies for earliest possible deployment, and in particular the integration, demonstration and validation of technologies capable of: (i) increasing aircraft fuel efficiency, thus reducing CO 2 emissions by 20 to 30 % compared to state-of-the-art aircraft entering into service as from 2014; (ii) reducing aircraft NO x and noise emissions by 20 to 30 % compared to state-of-the-art aircraft entering into service as from These objectives were based on the recognition of the economic benefit of the air transport sector to the European Union both directly, in a strong contribution to employment and GDP, and in aviation s role in the overall competitiveness and growth of the European Union. Technological advances in aeronautics that mitigate the environmental impact of the future global fleet could prevent constraints on the growth of air traffic due to emissions and on airport capacity due to noise limitations. However private investment in these technologies is only partly justified by the economies of the fuel consumption reductions that would accompany reductions in emissions and the competitive advantage to be gained is highly dependent on the prevailing oil price level. With the environmental costs to society thus far external to the air transport operators and manufacturers, public funding of the related research is a necessary additional incentive for the industry to invest in clean technologies. Competitiveness in the aeronautics sector requires exceptional levels of research investment, a higher than normal level of risk, long return on investment and lower return on investment than in other sectors. However it is a leading edge industry with significant spill over benefits in other sectors and the European Union s long commitment to building and maintaining world class capability in aeronautics manufacturing has had a significant economic impact in the community. It is also widely recognised that the main global competitors, such as the United States, enjoy a significantly higher level of public support for aeronautics research and that other strong competitors in various niche markets (Brazil, China, Russia, South Korea and India) have emerged in recent years. In comparison to this global trend, the Framework programmes, while generating significant contributions in innovations and concepts, have not been able to sufficiently emphasise the validation of complex systems at a high level of integration. The Clean Sky programme focuses on technologies that offer the potential for step changes in performance but that are currently seen as too high a risk to be funded only privately. It emphasises the realisation of high technology readiness demonstrators that could position industry for accelerated exploitation at reduced risk and influence the timing of new product development. The scope of the Clean Sky JTI addressed the breadth of three main axis all segments of civil air transport (regional aircraft and rotorcraft in addition to the economically dominant large commercial aircraft); the full depth of the supply chain (including engines, systems and materials supporting technologies) and the product development life cycle (to the limit of what may be realised with public funding), through an integrated approach leading to multiple full scale ground and flight test demonstrators. In the course of the execution of Clean Sky 1, and one of its important lessons learned and achievements, is that this approach enabled many of the participants to retain (or retrain) their internal capability for product development. The Clean Sky JU was established in 2008 to run until 31 December 2016, with a budget of 1.6 B equally shared between the European Commission (EC) and the aeronautics research community members. Its members were 11 Industry representatives (and their affiliates) and a research organisation in the role of Leaders. Additional members were to be added through open calls for Core Partners and many short term Partners will be joined through Calls for Proposals. 14

15 The current, second generation Clean Sky JU was charged with the top level management of the research activities of the initial Clean Sky programme for its last two years beyond the end of the Seventh Framework (to encompass the exploitation phase of the product development life cycle) and to transition to the Clean Sky 2 research agenda. Its role is to monitor the technological progress and impact of the research activities during the overall programme and explicitly includes the management of the vast amount of knowledge that the programme will generate. The JU staffing consists of contract and temporary agents under (until September 2016) Executive Director Eric DAUTRIAT, a highly qualified industrial research manager, who shaped and inspired the Clean Sky programme from its inception. Clean Sky 1 demonstrated that this unprecedented level of coordinated participation in support of common objectives with coherent targets provided a focal point around which aeronautics industry leaders and their knowledge networks could coalesce. A greater degree of cooperation between national, EU and industry sponsored research across the supply chain was achieved and the involvement of new actors, including from other industrial sectors, was stimulated by the high visibility of such an ambitious programme. This was the momentum that Clean Sky 2 would strive to maintain. The broad lines of the organisation of the Clean Sky JU and the architecture of the research agenda are discussed here and elaborated in other sections of this report, as needed to address specific evaluation criteria. The Clean Sky 2 research is organised in 9 units consisting of, at aircraft level, the Integrated Aircraft Demonstrator Platforms (IADP). The tier 1 suppliers of airframes, engines and systems form the Integrated Technology Demonstrators (ITDs), and transverse ITDs define the units whose work interfaces with each of the other units. This is shown below, with the respective funding levels at the outset of the programme. The matrix character of the relationships between these ITDs is reflected in the accompanying illustration and reflects the experience from the Clean Sky 1 programme with the coordination of technology development in this supply chain plus organisation model. A Technology Evaluator (TE) led by DLR assesses the environmental performance of the technologies developed in CS at sub-system, system and system of systems level (Figure 1). It was realised in CS1 as the first available European complete integrated tool delivering direct relationship between advanced technologies, still under development, and high-level local or global environment impact. 15

16 Clean Sky 2 Interim Evaluation Report 30 June 2017 Figure 1 Clean Sky Program Logic and Set-up [10] The demonstrators of the Clean Sky programme are configured to achieve technology readiness level (TRL) 6 based on the OECD definitions as directed in [1]. The higher product development level of TLR 7 (prototype) is beyond the scope of the programme. It is, however, noted by experts that the TLR concept needs to consider its technological context, i.e. a TRL will usually differ when assessed e.g. at component or system level, thus, a technology at TLR 4 on one platform can drop back to TRL 2 on another. The limiting criteria, according to [11] seems to be "non-marketability" but it is clear that the Clean Sky demonstrators may not have the characteristics of a prototype fully functioning in an operational environment Intervention logic It is current practice to present an intervention such as the Clean Sky PPP initiative in the overall context of the European research priorities and the global influences on the industrial sector [3]. While not exhaustive, this analysis of the Clean Sky context and incentives for the JTI approach does provide key checkpoints for this evaluation and the assessment of whether the intervention has been implemented as intended and realised its aspirations. The intervention logic of the Clean Sky initiative is rooted in two major NEEDS that follow from the objectives for the Framework 7 research priorities relevant for the aeronautics sector. These are: Technological breakthroughs for environmental impact mitigation The ACARE SRA environmental targets are so ambitious that they will not be reached without technological breakthrough, i.e. radical changes in technology requiring a substantial amount of research and validation but represent global leadership in signalling clear environmental objectives. Industrial readiness of green technologies a demonstrator based programme will ensure supply chain preparedness and product competitiveness of green technologies and level the playing field relative to global competitors with more public funding than in Europe. 16

17 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES to be realised by the implementation of the Clean Sky 2 JTI to meet these needs are: Validated green technologies arising from concepts developed within collaborative research projects (Framework programmes) and brought to system level demonstrator (TRL 6) in the Clean Sky programme. The operational flexibility to cooperatively optimise the ongoing research programme to evolving industry priorities and to fast track promising technologies and thereby obtain long term commitment and investment from the aeronautics research community. The mobilisation of a critical mass of resources to accelerate the realisation of common objectives through demonstrators with a high degree of functional integration. Continuity and consistency of research activities over the programme life cycle to reduce the fragmentation of the collaborative research lottery and increase the efficiency of access to public funding. Centralised programme management with efficient systems to reduce the administrative burden/barrier -*for research entities. An innovation pipeline response within CS2 to the very limited H2020 collaborative research funding for aeronautics The RESOURCES to be applied in the PPP intervention are: The research capacity of the highest quality eligible actors, deployed to well-defined and rational research objectives. An adequate level of funding for the programme objectives in a balanced contribution and distribution among the participating entities. Streamlined and efficient procedures for grant administration and programme monitoring and control. The ACTIVITIES to be conducted are: The implementation of the joint technology proposal via development and work plans. The adaptation of the work plan to external factors and intermediate research results. The management of the programme. The monitoring and communication of the outcomes (knowledge management, dissemination, exploitation). The influential EXTERNAL FACTORS are emerging competition, economic conjuncture (air traffic growth, fuel price evolution), trade agreements, global climate change mitigation measures, change of political support and offshore ownership of European actors and changes in political support due to influences such as Brexit and the US intention to withdraw from the Paris Accord. As well as a host of validated demonstrators and green aircraft concepts, the OUTPUTS of the intervention will be research infrastructure, such as new simulation tools, updated test capacity (wind tunnels, test benches, flight test vehicles, test instrumentation etc.) and generated knowledge. The RESULTS of the intervention are expected to be validated Clean Sky technologies with the potential to realise the ACARE environmental targets and at a high level of technology readiness to accelerate market introduction. Spill-over results will be leading edge knowledge that can be applied in other industrial sectors. The IMPACTS will be: Strengthened research and innovation capacity in the aeronautics research eco-system Strengthened industrial competitiveness Mitigation of the environmental impact of air traffic growth Avoidance of noise limitations to airport utilisation increase Increased mobility and economic growth for EU citizens 17

18 Clean Sky 2 Interim Evaluation Report 30 June 2017 These aspects are summarised in the intervention logic diagram below (Figure 2). Figure 2 Intervention logic diagram Consistency of the JU with EU s general transport objectives A policy designed to stimulate research and development in the aeronautics sector, leading to environmentally efficient aircraft, is one pillar of the global strategy presented in the communication COM(2005)459 of September 2005 to reduce the climate impact of aviation, which was endorsed by the Council (2 December 2005) and the Parliament (4 July 2006). Stimulating aeronautics R&D is complementary to measures such as the Commission proposal to include aviation in the EU Emission Trading Scheme (ETS). In addition it is widely recognised that greener aviation technologies will contribute towards mobility within an enlarged EU, which will be particularly important for accession states where traffic is growing rapidly from a low base White Papers on transport 2001 and 2011 The general transport objectives in the period when Clean Sky 1 was designed were mainly based on the White Paper on transport [12] developed in 2001 and its successor documents which were adopted by the EC as a roadmap for research policy development. This is tasked to the Clean Sky 2 JU in its Statutes [1] at Annex I (2(c)): (c) focusing efforts within ITDs, IADPs and TAs on key deliverables that can help the Union meet its environmental and competitiveness goals, including as outlined in the Commission s White Paper from 2011 entitled Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system The White Paper underlines that the RTD priorities in the aeronautics field will focus, on the one hand, on lessening the environmental impact of engine emissions and noise and improving aircraft safety. It further states that As regards the environment, the aim is to compensate for the increase in air traffic by reducing CO 2 emissions by 50 % and NO x by 80 % and by reducing aircraft noise by 10 db in order to cut the perceived noise level by 50 %. Research will focus on aircraft technology, low-drag aerodynamics and flight operating procedures. Clean Sky continues to be well aligned to these objectives. 18

19 In general the policies of the White Paper for transport are strongly passenger-centred and driven by economic aspects in a more competitive integrated, safe and intermodal transport system. The updated White Paper for transport published in 2011 continues to demand that Improving the efficiency of aircraft and traffic management operations has to be pursued in the air sector. It adds however Developing and deploying new and sustainable fuels and propulsion systems and targets Low-carbon sustainable fuels in aviation to reach 40 % by [13]. This is not within the scope of Clean Sky Vision 2020 and Flightpath 2050 In 2001, the report of the Group of Personalities "European Aeronautics: A vision for 2020 " [14] pioneered an integrated vision of the European Air Transport System (ATS) for the next 20 years and became a popular reference for research policy development, although it is no official adopted policy document of the EC. It established, as its top-level objectives, the need to respond to society's needs and to secure European leadership in the aeronautics field." Society's needs embrace the whole range of benefits that all citizens of Europe expect of the air transport industry now and in the future. These benefits are direct, as in the quality and price of travel, and indirect, as in the preservation of security and safety in a more global world. They encompass the personal needs of travellers and the collective needs of non-travellers who want to live in quiet, pollution-free neighbourhoods." It is clear that the range of CS research also addresses these aspects. In 2010, an updated Flightpath 2050 vision formulated by a high level group was published by DG RTD and DG Move. It specifically addressed the extraordinarily long lead times required for sustainable innovation in aeronautics. The following goals directly apply to Clean Sky area of interest: Europe will maintain leading edge design, manufacturing and system integration capabilities and jobs supported by high profile, strategic, flagship projects and programmes which cover the whole innovation process from basic research to full-scale demonstrators. Streamlined systems engineering, design, manufacturing, certification and upgrade processes have addressed complexity and significantly decreased development costs (including a 50% reduction in the cost of certification). A leading new generation of standards is created. In 2050 technologies and procedures are available allow a 75% reduction in CO 2 emissions per passenger kilometre to support the ATAG target and a 90% reduction in NOx emissions. The perceived noise emission of flying aircraft is reduced by 65%. These are relative to the capabilities of typical new aircraft in Aircraft movements are emission-free when taxiing. Air vehicles are designed and manufactured to be recyclable. Europe is established as a centre of excellence on sustainable alternative fuels, including those for aviation, based on a strong European energy policy. European research and innovation strategies are jointly defined by all stakeholders, public and private, and implemented in a coordinated way covering the entire innovation chain. A network of multi-disciplinary technology clusters are created based on collaboration between industry, universities and research institutes. 19

20 Clean Sky 2 Interim Evaluation Report 30 June 2017 Strategic European aerospace test, simulation and development facilities are identified, maintained and continuously developed. The ground and airborne validation and certification processes are integrated where appropriate. All of these objectives, with the exception of sustainable fuels, are within the scope of the Clean Sky 2 research programme ACARE Following the objectives of the high level group laid down in the Flightpath 2050 objectives, the Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research in Europe (ACARE), produced again a set of more detailed recommendations, that are now called Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda (SRIA) in 2012 and an updated edition was published and presented at the Paris Airshow in Le Bourget in June 2017 [15]. The Joint Technical Programme [2] of Clean Sky 2, the most comprehensive public document describing the whole scope of the CS2 programme, explicitly states The renewed ACARE SRIA was completed in 2012, with ambitious goals for a sustainable and competitive aviation sector. These include a 75% reduction in CO 2 emissions, a 90% reduction in NO X and 65% in perceived noise by 2050 compared to 2000 levels, and 4 hour door-to-door journey for 90% of European travellers. These substantial emissions reductions and mobility goals require radically new aircraft technology inserted into new aircraft configurations. Building on the substantial gains made in Clean Sky, Clean Sky 2 aims at meeting the overall high-level goals with respect to energy efficiency and environmental performances Thus, the ACARE SRIA s have been influential on Clean Sky 2 objectives and the environmental impact mitigation targets in the programme are directly linked to this reference. 20

21 3.2 Baseline The Clean Sky 2 programme is a follow on to the successful Clean Sky JU established in the Seventh Framework research programme. Aeronautics research has taken place under the European Framework Research programmes which have been operating since the mid 80 s with progressive budget increases and continual changes to the priorities, allocations and instruments within each programme. While industrial competitiveness was generally part of the scope of the successive workplans, the Fourth Framework was the first implementation detailing a Transport agenda in which for air transport, research will focus on reducing congestion of airspace and of airports, particularly taking into account the results of transport telematics, as well as on further improving human safety and reducing the negative impact on the environment» The evolution of the Framework program budgets and the approximate appropriation for aeronautics (exclusive of air transport) is shown in Table 1. It can be seen that the growth in aeronautics research has not kept pace with the general trend. In addition, collaborative research funding dropped dramatically in Horizon 2020 with major impact on the research community not engaged in Clean Sky 2. ID Framework Programme Period Budget (B ) appr. Budget for aeronautics (B ) Approx. Budget for aeronautics collaborative research (B ) FP1 First na na FP2 Second na na FP3 Third na [16] 0.35 [16] [16] 0.71 [16] FP4 Fourth Na na [16] [16] FP5 Fifth [16] [16] FP6 Sixth [16] 0.85 [16] FP7 Seventh [16] [16] FP8 Horizon 2020 (Eighth) Table 1 Key financial data for the different FP's The Fifth Framework programme specifically addressed aeronautics research which, being considered close to market had previously been largely conducted in the context of the EUREKA instrument and over 600 projects are identified as related to FP5 calls for aerospace. In general the Framework Programmes made extensive use of the Specific Targeted Project (STP) instrument which in FP6 involved an average of 9 participants and received around EUR 2 million of EC contribution for a period of three years. In comparison, FP6 Integrated Platform (IP) contracts (40% of the funding) engaged 25 participants and received around EUR 9.5 million of EC contribution for a period of four years. The topic aerospace was allocated 6.4% of the overall FP6 budget. The success rate of Aerospace proposals in FP6 was 30% averaged over all instruments and 57% for IPs. Private participation (BES, substantially Industry) in FP6 projects is around 55% compared to 30% for the overall programme. In FP7 the overall success rate dropped to 20%. The higher success rate for IP s is related to the participation of stakeholders in the preparation of the Work Program and in particular to the very targeted large project scope and objectives that did not induce submissions from unprepared consortia or allow for their success. Considering the effort in expertise, time and travel to establish a collaboration and align the capabilities of the prospective partners into a cohesive research program, an unsuccessful proposal has a significant negative economic contribution. However many institutions depend on research funding for their growth (or stability!) and proposals therefore must continue to be submitted. It is 21

22 Clean Sky 2 Interim Evaluation Report 30 June 2017 worth noting here that these same institutions are besieged with fully funded PhD candidates from countries with an emerging aeronautical industry. The aeronautical work plans for the Framework programmes, in which the calls for proposals were defined, were largely discipline oriented thematic descriptions of the desired project result. Generally several successful proposals were selected for funding under each call topic. While on the one hand this format provided plenty of scope for bottom-up creativity in project definitions, it did not provide for any continuity of the knowledge acquired from one project to the next (which was often granted to a different consortium of research organisations). Nor could this approach filter out duplication and repetition of research activity or research on matters which were already state of the art. The Technology Platforms (or IPs in FP6) were an exception where the research objective, and quite probably the related proposals, were crafted with the support of the ETP organisation for aeronautics, ACARE and IMG 4, The European Aeronautics industry network for R&T and targeted an industrially defined need. A typical IP would aspire to reach TRL 4 (Component and/or breadboard validation in laboratory environment basic (low fidelity) technological components are integrated to establish that they will work together) or possibly TRL 5 where higher fidelity breadboard technology is integrated in a representative, possibly simulated, environment. This is a significant advance from the conceptual and analytical/experimental work which precedes these levels. The next advance, to a representative model or prototype system, to be tested in a relevant environment, is a huge step forward in industrialisation and manufacturing of the system components and is the domain of the TRL 6 Demonstrators that are the essence of Clean Sky. However, in the steps towards realising a demonstrator there are many technology requirements that are unfulfilled at the start of the integration effort and a great many inventions, from concept to prototype are swept up in the race to demonstrate the original technological concept. It is then apparent that the undifferentiated bottom up calls and funding lottery of the traditional framework instruments could not create the unity of purpose and focus of capability that can be realised in a Joint Technology Initiative such as Clean Sky. In view of the key role of the Project Officer in the Clean Sky JU it is necessary to consider the historical approach to project management, which was carried out by similarly titled Project Officers in the Commission Directorate (RTD Transport) responsible for the work programme, the calls and the management of the evaluations of the proposals. The multitude of small projects were primarily monitored through the negotiation of a grant agreement consistent with the proposal and the timely appearance of deliverables and a web presence. However the large Integrated Projects were more closely monitored, with the ongoing support of external experts, and serious efforts were often needed to resolve scope and partner commitment issues. The strong aeronautics background of the Commission project officers and their broad familiarity with the sector enabled them to effectively meet this challenge. However, running research projects and maintaining contact with beneficiaries has transitioned to the Innovation & Networks Executive Agency (INEA), who has engaged limited sector expertise, and FP7 projects have been transferred as RTD project officers retire. Horizon 2020 calls do not clearly distinguish project size but it is believed that no very large projects have been initiated thus far. 22

23 Figure 3 Relative financing for framework programmes over the last frame programs relating the trend for global funding to the share appr. allocated for aeronautics and in that context, for collaborative projects (CP). Although the support for aeronautics research in the Framework programmes steadily increased, it did not follow the same trend as the overall budget. Of particular concern is the very limited H2020 budget for aeronautics collaborative research, the breeding ground for innovations and their first steps in demonstrating industrial feasibility. The original (September 2011) Commission proposal intended to double the FP7 budget for H2020 to approximately 100 B and the CS2 applicants correspondingly proposed 1800 M. The sharing between collaborative research and CS2 would have been similar to that of FP7. When the H2020 budget was settled at approximately 70 B, the budget for transport and aeronautics was almost unchanged with respect to FP7 (2,1 B to 2,4 B ). Hence the commitment made for CS2 and SESAR JU reduced the budget for collaborative research from 1.2 B in FP7 to less than 0.2 B under H2020. This is in contradiction with the intention that collaborative research is the core of Community research funding with JTIs intended to address only selected aspects of research in their field. [7, 8] Figure 4 EU contribution to the different program under FP7 and H2020 This is expected to have a long term impact on the quality of European product development in aeronautics. Tentatively, alternative measures will be taken by the CS2 JU to ensure that the innovation pipeline continues to produce the quality of research that has sustained the industry for two decades and formed the basis for the demonstrator programmes running today. The FP7 Clean Sky programme demonstrated the value of the JTI approach in efficiently coordinating a large and integrated research agenda and providing long term certainty to its main participants. The continuation in Horizon 2020 is based on the contribution that greener aviation technologies will contribute towards mobility within an enlarged EU, which will be particularly important for accession states where traffic is growing rapidly from a low base. It is attenuated by the strong Horizon 2020 industrial competitiveness agenda. Many lessons were learned in CS1 on how great the challenge of 23

24 Clean Sky 2 Interim Evaluation Report 30 June 2017 demonstrator projects is but industry continues to see the long term benefit of their investment in the JU. 24

25 4. EVALUATION QUESTIONS This interim evaluation of the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking addresses the need for an in depth assessment of whether this second generation of public-private partnership is implemented in an open, transparent and efficient way. A broad range of topics are considered in the factual inquiry (document review) and the solicitation of opinions in surveys and interviews. The evaluation criteria of the Better Regulation Package [3]; relevance; efficiency; effectiveness; coherence and EU added value are addressed as appropriate. The evaluation begins with an examination of the BACKGROUND AND DESIGN OF INITIATIVE AND INTERVENTION LOGIC in which the prevailing funding instruments for aeronautics research are discussed and the original incentives for the Clean Sky JU implementation and the background to the CS2 programme are identified. This insight is presented in section 3 of this report. Section 6 of this report IMPLEMENTATION OF CLEAN SKY JOINT TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE reviews the formation of the Clean Sky JU for the H2020 framework, and the manner in which funding was allocated in the course of the Clean Sky programme, to assess the extent to which openness and transparency was achieved. The research work carried out since 2014 in the Clean Sky JU is reviewed in section 7.1 MAIN ACHIEVEMENTS AND EFFECTIVENESS OF IMPLEMENTATION. The technical accomplishments (and setbacks) are presented for each ITD as is the progress in achieving the ACARE targets set for the programme. Research related aspects such as dissemination, exploitation and the value added of the research results is also addressed. A number of aspects of the overall functioning of the JU are addressed in section 7.2 JU PERFORMANCE IN The overall operation of the JU is evaluated in section JOINT UNDERTAKING MISSION AND GOVERNANCE to assess whether the regulatory framework has been coherently implemented and whether the governance structure, and each of its components, are effective in supporting the JU. Section OPERATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS looks more closely at the functioning of the JU Programme Office to assess whether their methods and procedures have been effective in realising a new paradigm for the aeronautical research community. The performance of the JU Programme Office in their management role is the subject of OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY. In section 7.3 EU ADDED VALUE the effectiveness of the large scale demonstrator programme, in comparison to alternative research deployment schemes, is discussed. The relationship between the Clean Sky programme and the related research activities such as H2020 collaborative research, SESAR and nationally funded aeronautics research is presented in Section 7.4 COHERENCE. The incentives for continuation of the Clean Sky programme into Clean Sky 2 due to the ongoing contribution to societal objectives is discussed in section 7.5 RELEVANCE. Section 8 presents the overall CONCLUSIONS of the evaluation and identifies the aspects that are working well along with those that need more attention. It emphasises that the main key to the success of the CS2 programme will be the commitment and dedication of both the public and private partners in meeting the expectations of the initial concept for the JTI. The evaluation closes in section 9 RECOMMENDATIONS with a set of ideas that might positively influence the functioning of the CSJU in the short term as well as some that may only be achievable in a successor Clean Sky programme. 25

26 Clean Sky 2 Interim Evaluation Report 30 June METHOD/PROCESS FOLLOWED 5.1 Process/Methodology The Clean Sky Final Evaluation and the Clean Sky 2 Interim Evaluation were conducted in parallel by two domain expert reviewers (one shared with SESAR) and a rapporteur, all appointed mid December A team including the S2R and S2020 (SESAR) reviewers was led by two horizontal experts that contributed cross-cutting input. A comprehensive and carefully articulated Terms of Reference (ToR) [5] contract annex outlined the daunting task ahead. An initial documentation set addressing the establishment of the JU s, the annual reports and the two CS Interim Assessments [17, 18] were provided in preparation for the Kick-off meeting in Brussels in mid-january. It was immediately noted that the previous Interim Assessments were conducted by a dedicated team of not less than 5 evaluators over a period of 7 months and set accordingly a much higher granularity for technical insight than we are able to achieve. The Kick-off meeting (see also a history of the evaluation in Table 2) provided an opportunity to meet the staff of the various Commission entities involved in the Evaluation, to learn of the interrelationship of our work with the H2020 Interim Review and the related schedule challenges, and to meet the Clean Sky management team and our appointed JU interlocutors (a very wise and necessary arrangement for which we are all grateful). A first Evaluation Team meeting followed and provided an opportunity to exchange views on the approach to the task. Following this Kick-off event the team moved into familiarisation and information gathering phase with interviews beginning just 5 weeks later. Two days of interviews with many of the JU staff provided background and key attention points which effectively guided the follow-up planning. These interviews coincided with a Rapporteurs meeting in Brussels which was attended for Clean Sky by teleconference. Unfortunately, despite the best efforts of the Commission meeting organiser, the poor tele-conferencing facilities did not support meaningful participation. However it was clear that the Clean Sky Evaluation team would be challenged to make a contribution to the H2020 Interim Evaluation due to its very short lead time for our input. Period Key Activity December 2016 Evaluator contracts. Initial documents (establishment, interim assessments and annual reports) January Commission Kick-off meeting and first evaluation team meeting in Brussels Urgent input to coordinator survey Statistical data (Corda) for calls available. February 2017 Inventory of documentation and interview requirements Preparatory discussions with JU management Mid February First set of documents from JU (Dev Plan, CSMM, WP ) Feb 28, March 1 Interviews with JU staff (rapporteur connected via teleconference) March 2 Rapporteurs meeting (rapporteur connected via teleconference) March 7 Coordinators survey results posted March 17 Public Survey Results posted March 13 to 31 JU colocation of the rapporteur March 21/22 Clean Sky Forum and CS Closing Event, GB,SC,SRG meetings, Interviews (GB, ACARE, DLR, Honeywell) April Annual Review meeting Rotorcraft IADP in Turin (Italy) April 27 ITD Steering committee meetings held May 3-5 Annual Review meeting Systems ITD in Linkoping (Sweden) June 22 Final meeting Table 2 Key activities of the evaluation The Clean Sky Closing Event on March 21 and 22 drew many of the Clean Sky stakeholder representatives to Brussels and the JU had planned coincident meetings of most of their governing entities. The Clean Sky JU generously provided office accommodation and supervised access to the shared drive through which all of the programme documentation is available in a very orderly and accessible directory. The last three weeks in March provided thus a very efficient closure of the Information Gathering and Interview phase of the evaluation effort. 26

27 The Annual Reviews of two of the key WORKPACKAGES in Clean Sky 2 (the Large Passenger Aircraft IATP and the Systems ITD) fell within the timeframe of the evaluation process and were attended in part by one of the members of the evaluation team. The JU arranged coincident related site visits where the Clean Sky demonstrator hardware could be seen and appreciated. Additional interviews were conducted with MEP Marian Marinescu on SESAR and Clean Sky content, as well as Thales Avionics and Airbus Helicopter representatives. Stakeholder input through the Coordinator and Public Surveys was analysed and absorbed into the evaluation report outline. 5.2 Limitations A comprehensive review of the technical foundations of the Clean Sky programme has been beyond the scope of this evaluation. It is more important then that this evaluation presents and analyses the relationship that the Clean Sky JTI continues to have on the eco-system of aeronautics research and the impact that it has had on the productivity and effectiveness of this community. The evaluation findings in this report may be compromised by limitations of the utility of the management information available to the JU Programme Office, albeit generously shared with the reviewers. Insight in the composition of the membership and partners, and the contribution of each to the technical objectives of the programme, seem to be spread across a multitude of spreadsheets that each reflect the purpose for which they were created without elaboration of their data sources. While there is no doubt that the JU s Project Officers and the Executive Director know the Clean Sky programme so intimately that they can make a presentation at the drop of a hat, or find a presentation in response to a reviewer s inquiry, we did not see management information at the level of maturity that would be expected. Many important relationships, such as the start and finish TRL of a project; its participants, budget and timeline and its relationship to a demonstrator (or the cause of its failure to contribute) should be more accessible. The deliverables, dissemination activities and eventual exploitation success (or not) should form an integral part of the JU Programme Office s management information system. The reviewers experienced many set backs to their original aspirations regarding the quality and content of this evaluation due to the severely limited time for its creation combined with the challenge of obtaining an overview of the aspects of the programme that were relevant to the evaluation. 27

28 Clean Sky 2 Interim Evaluation Report 30 June IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CLEAN SKY JOINT TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE 6.1 Implementation in general The Joint Technology Initiatives (JTIs) are public-private partnerships (PPPs) in industrial research at a European level. They were a major new feature of the seventh framework programme (FP7), introduced to support key areas of research and technological development that can contribute to Europe s competitiveness and quality of life. They were set up in under the seventh framework programme (FP7) in five strategic areas aeronautics and air transport; public health; fuel cell and hydrogen technologies; embedded computing systems; and nano-electronics. Bringing together industry, the research community, in some cases regulators and the EU, to define common research agendas and invest in large-scale multinational research activities, the JTIs are concrete examples of the European Union's efforts towards strengthening its competitiveness through scientific excellence, openness and innovation. The transition to a second generation of the JU s under H2020 was promoted by the former President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso in his 2013 statements on an accelerated continuation of the JTI's under H2020. Period CS timeline Early 2000 s Recognition of a lack of large scale projects 2001 Vision for 2020 followed by the ACARE SRA app Initiative by informal industrial group. June 2006 Clean Sky Workshop (ASD) with 200 participants. 23 June 2006 Study on the proposed Aeronautics JTI (structure and Rules for Participation), Bertolini, Huguet October 2006 Proposing members join MoU for Clean Sky Definition of the ITD content February 2007 Additional members join the MoU March 2007 CLEAN SKY JTI Proposal submitted May 2007-May 2008 FP7 Clean Sky CSA launched coordinated by Airbus SAS. 13 June 2007 Ex-Ante Evaluation of Clean Sky Impact Assessment 20 June 2007 Clean Sky JTI announced by Science and Research Commissioner, Janez Potocnik at Paris Airshow. December 2007 CSJU established as PPP 2008 Technical evaluation of Clean Sky 4 February 2008 Clean Sky regulation published September 2008 First ITD coordination meeting 15 June 2009 Clean Sky s first Call for Proposals. 20 November 2009 Full autonomy of CS 12 September lead-members sign a Letter of Intent for CS2 under H June 2013 The future Clean Sky 2 Leaders give a Joint Technical Proposal (JTP) to the European Commission at Paris Le Bourget. 10 July 2013 The European Commission launches an innovation investment package that paves the way for the continuation of the Clean Sky Joint Technology Initiative (JTI) within the EU Horizon 2020 Framework Programme. 7 May 2014 The Council of the European Union agrees to extend the Clean Sky Joint Technology Initiative (JTI) within the EU Horizon 2020 Framework Programme with a budget of 4 billion. 24 October 2014 The members of Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking Scientific Committee are selected. 23 July nd Call for Proposals for Clean Sky 2 is launched. 22 October rd Call for Core Partners is launched. 28

29 6.2 Structure of Clean Sky 2 JU The Clean Sky JU was implemented precisely as required by its Establishing Regulation [9] including the governing Statutes in Annex 1. As in CS1, the central decision making body is the Governing Board (GB) comprised of the European Community, represented by the Commission, and 16 members in the Leader role. On a rotating basis there are further 6 representatives (1 per IADP/ITD) of the Core Partners, integrated following the selection of Core Partners through calls, and 6 of the CS1 associates (1 per ITD) until CS1 is closed at the end of Each member has one vote. Whereas in CS1 the EC has a veto in strategic, financial and procedural matters affecting the responsibilities of the Commission as a public trustee, in CS2 they hold 50% of the vote. Decisions not reached in consensus require an 80% majority of all member votes. The CS1 ITD Steering Committees remain constituted and there are 6 IADP/ITD Steering Committees for the CS2 scope of work to take responsibility for the technical and financial management of the ITD participants. There is further a Steering Committee, established by a GB decision, for the Technology Evaluator and Coordinating Committees for the Eco-Design and Small Air Transport transverse activities. The JU Programme Office is led by the Executive Director (ED) and consists of a support staff unit (i.e. administrative, legal, financial, human resources etc.), a project coordination role headed by the Chief Project Officer (to the good for the programme, a person who has been involved in Clean Sky since its inception) and a Clean Sky 2 Programme Manager. The day to day management of the research agenda is done by the team of Project Officers. The statutory General Forum that engaged Partners who were joined to the programme through selection in calls for project proposals is not present in CS2. The National States Representatives Group (NSRG) of CS1 is continued as the States Representatives Group (SRG) with a similar role and the Scientific and Technical Advisory Board (STAB), which was formed in CS1 by the ED, is in CS2 the statutory Scientific Committee. (SciCom) Whereas the CS1 Statutes explicitly mentions the Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research and Innovation in Europe (ACARE) in the JU tasks and the ED role this is not the case in the CS2 Statutes. 6.3 Budget allocation The overall CS2 EC contribution of 1,755.5 M was, in view of the need to engage a very broad aeronautical research community, allocated for up to 40% to the co-opted members (the IADP/ITD Leaders and their Affiliates) and for up to 30% to the Core Partners that were joined as members following open calls for Core Partners early in the CS2 programme. All of these participating entities match the EC contribution to their scope of work with in kind contributions. In addition the Members also contributed to the running costs of the JU Programme Office, a total of 78 M. A minimum of 30% of the EC contribution was ring-fenced for disbursement in calls for proposals that drew shorter term Partners into the programme at a funding rate of 100% for research and innovation actions (RIA) for all applicants, and 75% and 100% for profit and non-profit -entities in the case of innovation actions (IA)." Both the Core Partner and Partner calls were executed by the CSJU. CS2 EU contribution B [1] Share for Leaders (members) 40% 702 M Core partners 30% 527 M Partners 30% 527 M 29

30 Clean Sky 2 Interim Evaluation Report 30 June 2017 Table 1 EU contribution broken down to the different types of participants, taken from [9], the running costs are not considered. The proportion of the EU funding allocated to each ITD and IADP and was, as in CS1, intended to roughly match approximately with the sectorial share, expressed by the GDP contribution of the sector (large passenger aircraft, engine, helicopters etc.). The preliminary distribution was given by the CS2 Establishment Regulation [9]. IADP/ITD/TA Abbr. Distribution percentage [1] Distribution funding [2] in M Large passenger aircraft - IADP LPA 24% Regional aircraft IADP REG 6% Fast Rotorcraft IADP FRC 12% Airframes - ITD AIR 27% Engines ITD ENG 19% Systems ITD SYS 14% Technology Evaluator TA TE 1% of IADP/ITD values 17.2 Eco-DESIGN TA ECO 2% of IADP/ITD values 39.0 (part of all IDPs/IADPs) Small Air Transport - TA SAT 4% of IADP/ITD values 68.0 (part of AIR, ENG, SYS) Table 3 EU contribution broken down to the different types of ITD and IADP, the transverse activities (TA) and the projected costs for running the CSJU, taken from [1] and [2]. Figure 5 EU funding allocation to the different IADPs, ITD's, TA and JU running cost [2]. The numbers are given in M. The CS1 Interim Evaluations and the CS2 Impact Assessment [19] proposed the introduction of a contingency budget to be allocated by the GB based on proposals by the ED. This was not implemented is CS2 but a provision to adjust budget allocations between the IADP/ITDs/TAs was made. Additional insight in the operational execution of the programme can be found in the level of funding to various types of work. For example wind tunnel testing was an important precursor of flight test demonstrations and was used to eliminate concepts and optimise the final configuration. Similarly, a significant effort would be expected in manufacturing both in hardware and tooling to realise a demonstrator and appropriate ground and air vehicle test facility were also a significant investment. Unfortunately the JU could not provide this breakdown (Table 4). Concept and configuration studies Wind tunnel models and testing Manufacturing -tooling and materials LPA REG FRC AIR ENG SYS 30

31 Demonstrator Test Facility Innovative Instrumentation Table 4: Categories of activity per ITD, M The recommendation in the CS2 Impact Assessment [19] to provide a contingency budget to be distributed by the GB was not implemented but the ED was given a discretionary range of 10% in budget transfers within and between ITDs and IADPs. Furthermore, an affected IADP/ITD no longer has a veto on budget transfers. These measures may improve the agility of programme adaptation in CS2 as compared to CS1. The engagement of co-operations, such as through the ESIF programme, may provide leverage funding for executing the CS programme. 6.4 Leaders and Affiliates The Industrial Leaders that co-founded the CS2 JTI together with the Commission, and are established as members in [20], are the same entities as in CS1 (Airbus Helicopter was formerly Eurocopter) plus DLR for the TE, Evektor and Piaggio for the SAT and MTU has joined Safran and Rolls Royce in the Engines ITD. The resulting composition of Leaders is shown in Table 5 It is noted that the ownership and trade name of several members might have changed in the course of the programme but the original naming is used here for continuity. AgustaWestland SpA and AgustaWestland Limited Airbus SAS Alenia Aermacchi SpA Dassault Aviation Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR) e.v. EADS-CASA Airbus Helicopters SAS Evektor Fraunhofer Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.v. Liebherr-Aerospace Lindenberg GmbH MTU Aero Engines AG Piaggio Aero Industries 31

32 Clean Sky 2 Interim Evaluation Report 30 June 2017 Rolls-Royce Plc Saab Safran SA Table 5 Leaders Thales Avionics SAS 6.5 Core partners Core Partners (in Clean Sky 1 associates) are added to the membership of Clean Sky following a selection through a Call for Core Partners. About 30% of the programme budget is for Core Partners. The calls, and all of the relevant documents, are published on the H2020 Single Portal for participants and follow the H2020 process to ensure openness and transparency. The evaluation panels are comprised of independent experts only, the topic managers may participate in an advisory role but are not part of the panel as in Clean Sky 1. The selection of Core Partners was completed at the end of 2016 through 4 waves of calls with, on average, 20 topics per call (Figure 5). The total number of topics was 75. The distribution of topics among the IAPD/ITDs is shown in Figure 7. Figure 6 Number of topics for the different Calls for core partners [21]. Figure 7 Number of topics for the different calls for core partners. [21] The average grant size for Core Partner topics was approximately 5,7 M. This is about ten times higher than was realised in calls for partners in Clean Sky 2. The geographical distribution of Core Partners in shown in Figure 8 and, as in Clean Sky 1, research partners in Italy and Spain are making a strong contribution to the program. This is further discussed in section 7.3 EU Added Value. 32

33 Figure 8 Winner per country for the complete set for all calls for core partners (some participants might have won in several calls) from [21]. 6.6 Calls for Partners The CS2 Establishing Regulation [1] allocates approximately 30% of the grants to Partners who are joined to the programme through open calls but do not become members. The Calls for Partners in Clean Sky introduced a new quality of call topic structure and content in the landscape of European aeronautics research. They consist of a well-defined scope of work, including pre-set deliverables and milestones, budget and set of qualifications. Only one winning proposal was accepted This is quite different from the relatively broad topics, for a wider range of applicants, of the traditional framework programs and is necessary for fulfilling the demonstrator mission of Clean Sky. In addition, a specific derogation from the H2020 Framework Rules for Participation [22] permitted a single beneficiary to submit a proposal rather than requiring a multinational consortium Call description Clean Sky CfP Call description - collaborative project Budget Budget is relatively fixed, variations Broad budget indication e.g. due to different funding rates Milestones/ Prescribed by the ITD steering To be provided by applicants Deliverables committee Expert panel 2 experts from EU-pool, 1 experts Experts from EU-pool from topic manager Composition of No restrictions, preference for small At least 3 partners from three different consortium consortia eligible countries Table 6 key characteristics showing differences between call topics characteristics in Clean Sky and in traditional programmes The detailed procedure of the design for the call for proposal is e.g. described in the management manuals, CSMM [23]. The call topics are developed in the ITDs/IADPs/TAs and the respective steering committees. The topic descriptions are reviewed by the responsible JU project officer to ensure that sensitive details are not being disclosed and that it is indeed a research topic rather than a matter which could have been subcontracted. Furthermore, on the basis of feedback on the early calls, project officers learned to screen carefully the requested qualifications to ensure the broadest possible eligibility of proposers. The call texts are later on also reviewed by the different parties that need to adopt the respective topics in the GB, such as the Commission. Also the SRG and the SciCom obtains call texts for comment. 33

34 Clean Sky 2 Interim Evaluation Report 30 June 2017 In addition, a specific derogation from the H2020 Framework Rules for Participation [22] permitted a single beneficiary to submit a proposal rather than requiring a multinational consortium. The detailed procedures related to CfPs are contained in the Clean Sky Management Manual (CSMM) [23] and evolve with the experience gained. A comparison with the key characteristics with respect to collaborative projects is given by Table 6. The CSJU now uses following the Council Regulation [1] the electronic means from the H2020 web-facilities managed by the Commission to ensure openness and transparency and to facilitate the whole process. Calls for core partners and calls for proposals launched by the Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking are thus published on the Single Portal for participants, where also all relevant documents can be found. According to the establishing regulation [1], approximately 30% of the grants shall be allocated to calls for proposals. The first Call for Proposal (CfP) in Clean Sky 2 was finally launched in December 2014, 5 month after the establishment of Clean Sky 2. Until December 2016, at the end of the scope of the evaluation, six calls CfP have finally been published and the first four calls are negotiated and contracts are signed. Also here, all calls were followed by Information Days held in Brussels and other places to elaborate on the call content and procedures to potential applicants. All evaluations were conducted in the presence of two independent reviewers, and a representative of the responsible leader in an advisory role [to check] and no significant anomalies were reported by them. The number of published topics for a certain call is given by Figure 9. Figure 9 Number of topics per CfP published for all calls from 1 to 6 [24] To give a more instructive picture, Figure 10 gives a breakdown according the distribution for the different ITDs, IADPs and TAs. We see that, according to the specific execution phase of the work plan, the relative number per demonstrator/platform/ta can considerably differ, a strong anomaly here is seen in call number 5 which was completely dedicated to the Technical Evaluator. Figure 10 Number of topics per CfP broken down according to the different IDTs and IATDs and TAs [24] The quality of a project proposal can be strongly influenced by the time that is available for its preparation as there are coordination challenges in building the consortium, resolving administrative issues and addressing the technical topic requirements with an innovative approach based on advancing the state of the art in the field. The time between call publishing and closure was approximately 90 days in the beginning of Clean Sky 1 and has been around 100 days in Clean Sky 2 (Figure 11), except for the third call at 70 days. 34

35 Figure 11 Number of days for proposal preparation for all calls from 1 to 6 [24] From the standpoint that projects in CS primarily strive to integrate instead of developing technologies, the duration of a project is an interesting parameter. The most frequently occurring project duration in Clean Sky 2 is 36 months and the average duration is 35 months (a total of 6900 months over 195 projects (Fig.12). This differs considerably from Clean Sky 1 which had peak values at 12, 18 and 24 months and an average duration of 21 months. This indicates that larger topics are being addressed in CS2 partner projects. The exceptionally long topic Touchscreen control panel for critical system management functions at 88 months ) concerns not only the touch pad and its electronics but also implements the whole control chain and is on behalf of the Airbus Disruptive Cockpit Demonstrator. Figure 12 Number of projects for a certain project duration (given in month) for CfP 1-4 (calculated from Corda [25]. Fig 13 presents the relationship between the duration of projects and their budget. Compared to CS1 the projects are somewhat longer and the largest projects have a lower budget (In CS1 8,3 M and in CS2 about 5,3 M ). Further, up to a project duration of about 48 months there is a close correlation to the budget but longer projects show more scatter with the longest at below 3 M. 35

36 Clean Sky 2 Interim Evaluation Report 30 June 2017 Figure 13 Project cost as a function of the project duration (given in month) for CfP 1-4 (calculated from Corda [25]. The amount of projects for certain budgetary range is presented in Fig Figure 14 as histogram, showing the contribution of projects at some budget range. It becomes clear that the most popular projects are in the budget range about 500 k, although the average grant volume is 900 M as some very big projects are also present. Figure 14 Amount of projects for certain budgetary range for CfP 1-4 (calculated from Corda [25]. In Clean Sky, normally two different kinds of success rates are considered, the topic success rate and the applicants success rate. The first one emerged from the the winner takes it all principle and due to the narrow scope of the call description establishing the risk that no, or no suitable applications are received. Clean Sky 1 achieved an approximate topic success rate of 75% [26], thus for 25% of all topics, no suitable application was received. The topic success rate is accordingly an important KPI for the CSJU as it reflects a) the ability of the steering committees and the project offices to write the proposals in a way that it balances the expectations of the call authors with the available expertise and b) the effectiveness of the dissemination strategy to make the aeronautics research community aware of that respective call. For the CSJU the topic success rate should reach at least a number of 90%. 36

37 The applicants success rate just represents, as in the traditional EU programs, the probability that an applicant is successful with its application, and in Clean Sky 1, that rate was approximately 35%. Another threshold that is partially used is the number of eligible proposals received for a certain number of topics (Figure 15). It measures the capability of the applicants to understand and be conform with the topic requirements, and reaches usually higher scores than the topic success rate, just because even an eligible application can finally be inappropriate for further consideration. For the first calls in CS2 the topic success rate is 83% which is in essence higher than in CS1, but still lower than the targeted KPI of 90%. The higher topics success with respect to CS1 can have two different reasons, first, the calls are due to learning curves more carefully written concerning scope and disseminated, and/or the call responses are stronger in H2020 as in FP7, as the alternative via collaborative research has almost disappeared as source of funding. Figure 15 Topic Success rate for the first four CfP. Figure 16 Average grant volume per topic (in k ) according to the actual selected topic applications within the scope of the evaluation CfP 1-4. [10] The average grant size for each of the ITDs/IADPs/TAs over the first 4 Calls for Partners is shown in, Figure 17. As in CS1, the topics of the Engine ITD are generally large due to the complexity and specificity of that research and innovation activities. Figure 17 Average grant volume per topic (in k ) according to the call texts for CfP 1-6 broken down for the different ITDs [21]. 37

38 Clean Sky 2 Interim Evaluation Report 30 June 2017 The focused and specific topics of the Clean Sky Calls for Partners are reflected in the low average size of the consortia (about 2 partners) and in the low average grant value. The average grant size (EU contribution used for funding) for all grants from CfP 1-4 in CS2 is in the range of 900 k [24]. This is however about twice as large as the average grant size in CS1. A distribution of the number of participants in the call for proposals and the EU contribution (176 M ) for CfP 1-4, according to the type of the organisation is given in Figure 18 and shows that private companies (PRC) have received about half of the grant volume. It was not possible in Corda [25] to reliably distinguish the division between SME (small medium enterprise) and LE (large enterprise) but CSJU data indicates that 28% of participants are SMEs. The average funding per participant is higher for Research Organisations (REC) than it is for Universities (HES= Higher and secondary education) due to the different nature of the work performed. Further analyses of the call data was not relevant this early in the programme. Figure 18 EU contribution versus type of organisation according [25] An extended analysis of the participation per ITD was not yet considered because the programme is still running, many projects just started up and presenting preliminary numbers could potentially provide some misleading messages. The geographical distribution of participants and funding for the Calls for Partners is shown in Figure 15. Similar to the Calls for Core Partners, Spain and Italy have achieved a significant participation through the Calls for Partners. 38

39 Figure 19 Share of funding ( =176 M ) and share of participants ( =491) and in the different CfP 1-4 according [25] broken down for every country (some participants might be present in different projects) 39

40 Clean Sky 2 Interim Evaluation Report 30 June ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 7.1 Main achievements and effectiveness of implementation The Clean Sky 2 research programme has had a much better start in life than its predecessor did. The continuity of both the CSJU staff, and their contribution to preparing the CS2 JTI programme, as well as the re-engagement of all of the former Leaders has yielded the benefit foreseen in the recommendations of the CS2 Impact Assessment [19]. A great deal of organisational capability was developed during Clean Sky 1. The experience gained with the use of a Development Plan and the conduct of Launch Reviews to verify the consistency of the individual subproject budgets, schedules and resourcing was also a positive influence on the CS2 start-up. One adverse effect was likely the transition from the relatively stand-alone FP7 implementation of the CSJU into the H2020 imperium, which formed a distraction from the research programme for both the CSJU staff and the programme coordinators of the private members. Clean Sky 1 was also shaken by the world economic crisis of 2008 and its impact on two aspects that greatly influence the fleet renewal and research investment priorities of the industry. The growth in air traffic which, as shown below, was interrupted in a crucial phase of the Clean Sky programme has recovered. The incentive to counteract the expected continued growth with environmental impact mitigation measures is re-established with perhaps a 5 year lag. Fuel prices however, after a short upturn, have remained low thus reducing the economic incentive for fleet renewal based on fuel cost savings alone. The latest Airbus variant, an A320 with incremental improvements (LEAP and PW1000 (geared turbofan) engine options) has performed well in the market and the potential launch of an all new single aisle aircraft incorporating Clean Sky technology (such as BLADE wing and CROR engine) has pushed out past 2025 and remains dependant on fuel cost (and possibly fuel tax) forecasts. Figure 20 World passenger traffic and crude oil price as key-parameters for the development of aeronautics Main Achievements Direct achievements This section summarises the overall accomplishments of each ITDs/IADPs/TA in the Clean Sky 2 programme to the extent possible, given the large volume of material to be considered and the limited time frame for this evaluation. The reviewers have no possibility to determine direct achievements to the date, because until now only the first annual reporting period is completed. The reviewers had potential to visit reporting meetings of all IADP and ITD. Therefore we will refer mostly to planned activities which are very well described in CS2 Development Plan [20] and are literally cited below IADP LPA Large Passenger Aircraft market remains highly competitive, new entrants having means to reach a technology level comparable to legacy US and European airframers support their ambition with both a captive home market and low costs and pricing. To stay ahead, LPA programme objectives 40

41 are to further mature technologies tackled in Clean Sky, e.g. the integration of CROR propulsion systems, and to validate other key technologies like hybrid laminarity for the wing, horizontal and vertical tail plane as well as an all-new next generation fuselage cabin and cockpit-navigation. The approach builds on the positive experience in Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft (SFWA) in Clean Sky. For Clean Sky 2, the Large Passenger Aircraft goal is high-trl demonstration of the best technologies to accomplish the combined key ACARE goals with respect to the environment, fulfilling future market needs and improving the competitiveness of future products. The setup of the main programme objectives is to further push the value of technologies tackled in Clean Sky, e.g. the integration of CROR propulsion systems, and to add the validation of additional key technologies like hybrid laminar flow for the wing, horizontal and vertical tail plane as well as an all-new next generation fuselage cabin and cockpit-navigation suite validated at integrated level with large scale demonstrators in operational conditions. Three distinct Platforms are managed in parallel and develop the abovementioned technologies and demonstrators: Low-sweep business jet [LSBJ] Platform 1 Advanced Engine and Aircraft Configurations will provide the environment to explore and validate the integration of the most fuel efficient propulsion concept for next generation short and medium range aircraft, the CROR engine. Large scale demonstration will include extensive flight testing with a full size demo engine mounted to the Airbus A test aircraft, and a full size rear end structural ground demonstrator. Two demonstrators are planned to mature the concept of hybrid laminar flow targeting for a substantial aerodynamic drag reduction for next generation long range aircraft. A further demonstration is planned for a comprehensive exploration of the concept of dynamically scaled flight testing. The target is to examine the representativeness of dynamically scaled testing for technology demonstration with highly unconventional aircraft configuration, which means flight test demonstrations that are virtually impossible with modified standard test aircraft. Platform 2 Innovative Physical Integration Cabin System Structure aims to develop, mature, and demonstrate an entirely new, advanced fuselage structural concept developed in full alignment towards next-generation cabin-cargo architectures, including all relevant principle aircraft systems. To be able to account for the substantially different requirements of the test programs, the large scale demonstration will be based on three individual major demonstrators. A lower centre section fuselage and one typical fuselage stretching from aft of the centre section to the pressure bulkhead will be developed, manufactured and tested with focus on loads and fatigue aspects. A further typical fuselage demonstrator will be dedicated to integrate and test a next generation of large passenger aircraft cabin and cargo. A number of smaller test rigs and component demonstrators will also be part of the Programme in the preparatory phase. Targeting to accomplish technology readiness level 6, manufacturing and assembly concepts for the next generation integrated fuselage-cabin-cargo approach will be developed and demonstrated. Platform 3 Next Generation Aircraft Systems, Cockpit and Avionics has a clear focus to develop and demonstrate a next generation cockpit and navigation suite. Based on the results of a number of research programmes which are currently ongoing or to be started shortly, platform 3 shall allow the Programme to integrate and validate all functions and features which are emerging from individual developments into a disruptive new concept in a major demonstrator suite. With the core of platform 3 being a major ground based demonstrator, selected features and functions will be brought to flight test demonstration when justified. The scope of platform 3 will cover the development of a disruptive cockpit operations concept, a rethinking towards a Human Centric based cockpit to operate the aircraft, including innovative functions and Human-Machine interface technologies required to reduce the crew workload, improve situational awareness and support disruptive cockpit operations. In addition the development of value-driven end-to-end maintenance service architectures will be investigated, enabling the replacement of scheduled maintenance by efficient on-condition maintenance IADP Regional aircraft (Reg) 41

42 Clean Sky 2 Interim Evaluation Report 30 June 2017 Regional aircraft are a key element of Clean Sky 2 providing essential building blocks towards an air transport system that respects the environment, ensures safe and seamless mobility, and builds industrial leadership in Europe. The Regional Aircraft IADP will bring technologies to a further level of integration and maturity than currently pursued in Clean Sky. The goal is to integrate and validate, at aircraft level, advanced technologies for regional aircraft so as to drastically de-risk their integration on future products. Full-scale demonstrations, with acceptable risk and complexity but still providing the requested integration, are essential to allow the insertion of breakthrough technologies on regional aircraft entering into service from The individual Technology Developments will be arranged along 8 Waves with several individual roadmaps. These technology waves will be developed through roadmaps defined to satisfy the high-level requirements of the future Highly-Efficient Next Generation Regional Aircraft, the configuration of which will be developed at conceptual Regional concept aircraft [TP90] level in a dedicated work package. To increase synergies and cross fertilization across the different ITDs and IADPs some of the above technological roadmaps will be shared with the streams of the Airframe ITD and with the developments of sub-systems and systems planned inside Systems and Engine ITD. The Demonstration Programme will be divided into technologically compatible and scope close demonstrations sub-programmes, including two flying test-beds [FTBs] and several ground demonstrators, some of which will be managed in and performed through the Airframe ITD: FTB1 - Innovative Wing and Flight Controls (Regional IADP): Integration and flight testing of technologies suitable to regional aircraft applications for a new generation wing and advanced flight control systems. Innovative wing related systems and wing structural solutions will also be incorporated where feasible. Aerodynamic enhancements and LC&A features will be considered to complement FTB2, such as: high A/R by means of adaptive/innovative winglets. FTB2 - Flight Demonstration of a high efficient and low noise Wing with Integrated Structural and related Systems solution, including power plant aspects (Regional IADP): A new wing will be designed, manufactured and equipped with new structural solutions strongly integrated with advanced low power and high efficient systems such as ice protection, fuel, flight control, engine systems, LE and winglets morphing. Full-scale innovative fuselage and passenger cabin (Regional IADP): Integration and on-ground testing of a full scale innovative fuselage and passenger cabin including all the on board systems and advanced solutions for increasing passenger comfort and safety. The fuselage will be a full scale demonstration of technologies for composite material, structures and manufacturing aimed to weight and cost reduction and to minimize the environmental impact through eco-design and energy consumption optimization all along the life-cycle (towards a zero-impact). Iron Bird (Regional IADP): Virtual and Physical Iron Birds will also be an important part of the Regional A/C Ground Demonstration Programme. These will also be used to integrate, optimize and validate the systems modification of the Flying Test Bed and the results of their simulations and ground testing will be essential to achieve the permit-to-fly. Ground Demonstration of the wing (Airframe ITD), including the airframe and related systems. Ground Demonstration of the Cockpit (Airframe ITD), including the structure and related system. Nacelle ground demonstration (Airframe ITD), to be confirmed IADP Rotocraft The Fast Rotorcraft IADP consists of two concurrent demonstrators, the Tiltrotor demonstrator and the Compound Rotorcraft demonstrator along with transversal activities relevant for both fast rotorcraft concepts. 42

43 Joint activities: These activities cover the methodology for technology evaluation of fast rotorcraft demonstrations and the Eco-Design concept implementation, along with the programme management activities for the Fast Rotorcraft IADP. Concerning the methodology for technology evaluation, the activities will allow defining SMART objectives and criteria adapted to the fast rotorcraft missions in line with the general TE approach for Clean Sky 2 Concerning Eco-Design concept implementation, the activities will allow coordinating approaches and work plans in the two demonstration projects regarding the greening of rotorcraft production processes and ensuring complementarity of case studies. The general Life Cycle Assessment approach will be coordinated with the participants of the Eco-Design TA. The Next-Generation Civil Tiltrotor demonstrator NextGenCTR: NextGenCTR will be dedicated to design, build and fly an innovative Civil Tiltrotor technology demonstrator, the configuration of which will go beyond current architectures of this type of aircraft. NextGenCTR s demonstration activities will aim at validating its architecture; technologies/systems and operational concepts. Demonstration activities will show significant improvement with respect to current Tiltrotors state-of-the-art. The project will also allow to develop substantial R&T activities to increase the know-how about a new platform like a Tiltrotor (not yet certified as a civil aircraft), and to generate a research and innovation volume of activities above a certain critical mass (not available today for Tiltrotors within EU), somewhat comparable to that of well proven conventional helicopter platforms. NextGenCTR will continue and further develop what has been initiated in Clean Sky, and launch new activities specific to Clean Sky 2 and NextGenCTR project. In the area of CO2 emissions reduction, NextGenCTR will continue/develop engine installation and flight trajectories optimization (this is now done by analytical models and with scaled model tests, whereas Clean Sky 2 will validate it at full scale), while specific Clean Sky 2 new activities on drag reduction of the prop-rotor and airframe fuselage and wing will be necessary (due to a new generation of prop-rotor, modified fuselage-wing architecture). This latter Clean Sky 2 specific topic will also be related to operation costs reduction to address competitiveness of the architecture and solutions adopted. The new prop-rotor will require substantial research (aero-acoustics, by modelling/by tests) to reduce noise emissions (then validated at full scale); in Tilt-rotor [TR] the current Clean Sky, noise reduction is mainly addressed through trajectories optimization (that will anyhow continue in Clean Sky 2 and will be linked to SESAR concepts where necessary). Clean Sky 2 transversal subjects will cover new material (e.g. thermoplastics, surface treatments, less hydraulics and more electrical systems) validating them at full scale and in real operational conditions, and sustain the development of the Technology Evaluator for the case of the Tiltrotor (today not widely considered). Parameters need to be defined to show Clean Sky 2 achieved progress according to a specific Tiltrotor roadmap (a direct comparison with conventional helicopter architecture seems not appropriate as the two configurations must be regarded as substantially different types of rotary-wing platforms). Today, certified Tiltrotors are not available in the civil sector (while only one product is available in the military); hence, a database from which baseline information for the current state-of-the-art can be extracted is not available. Therefore, key performance parameters (KPP) will be introduced to show NextGenCTR s progress with respect to reference data taken as baseline (mainly referring to technologies which have been tested or conceptually designed in the period ). Objectives will be defined considering tiltrotor specificities and in line with the main pillars of Horizon 2020 towards a Smart, Green and Integrated Transport and Clean Sky 2 which addresses environmental compatibility (Greening Objectives), competitiveness (Industrial Leadership) and mobility. Considerable attention to the project s impact on EU Economy and Jobs creation will be considered, to confirm and further sustain a steady growth of the sector with regard to revenues, workforce productivity, high rate of new employment (in particular of higher educated personnel) and R&D expenditure. 43

44 Clean Sky 2 Interim Evaluation Report 30 June 2017 The Compound Rotorcraft demonstrator: The LifeRCraft project aims at demonstrating that the compound rotorcraft configuration implementing and combining cutting-edge technologies as from the current Clean Sky Programme opens up new mobility roles that neither conventional helicopters nor fixed wing aircraft can currently cover in a way sustainable for both the operators and the industry. The project will ultimately substantiate the possibility to combine in an advanced rotorcraft the following capabilities: payload capacity, agility in vertical flight including capability to land on unprepared surfaces nearby obstacles and to load/unload rescue personnel and victims while hovering, long range, high cruise speed, low fuel consumption and gas emission, low community noise impact, and productivity for operators. A large scale flightworthy demonstrator embodying the new European compound rotorcraft architecture will be designed, integrated and flight tested. This demonstrator will allow reaching the Technology Readiness Level 6 at whole aircraft level in The project is based on: identified mobility requirements and environmental protection objectives; lessons learnt from earlier experimentation with the low scale exploratory aircraft X 3 ; technology progress achieved for rotorcraft subsystems on one side through participation to Clean Sky projects and other research activities at EU or local level; The individual technologies from the first Clean Sky Programme (Green Rotorcraft ITD, Smart Green Operations ITD, Eco- Design ITD) that will be further matured and integrated in this LifeRCraft demonstration concern: New rotor blade concepts aiming at improved lifting efficiency and minimizing noise; Airframe drag reduction through shape modifications and interference suppression; Engine intake loss reduction and muffling; Innovative electrical systems e.g. brushless generators, high voltage network, efficient energy storage and conversion, electrical actuation; Eco-Design approach, substituting harmful materials and green production techniques; Fly-neighbourly demonstration of new flight guidance functions and approach; This LifeCraft project essentially consists of the following main activities and deliveries: Airframe structure and landing system: Advanced composite or hybrid metallic/composite construction, featuring low weight and aerodynamic efficiency; Lifting rotor and propellers: Low drag hub, pylon and nacelles, 3D-optimized blade design; Drive train and power plant: New drive train architecture and engine installation optimised for the LifeRCraft configuration; On board energy, cabin and mission systems: Implementation of the more electrical rotorcraft concept to minimise power off-takes from the engines and drive system; Flight control, guidance and navigation: Smart flight control exploiting additional control degrees of freedom inherent to LifeRCraft configuration for best fuel economy and quieter flight; LifeRCraft Demonstrator overall design, integration and testing: All coordination and cross cutting activities relevant to the whole vehicle delivering a full range of ground & flight test results and final conclusion ITD Airframe Light single-engine helicopter [SEL] Aircraft level objectives on greening, industrial leadership and enhanced mobility, and the fulfilment of future market requirements and contribution to growth cannot be met without strong progress on the airframe. Altogether strong progress towards the 2020 targets will have been obtained when Clean Sky is completed (estimated at 75% of the relevant part of the initial ACARE goals, applicable to aircraft with an EIS from 2020/22). However 44

45 further progress is required on the most complex and challenging requirement on new vehicle integration to fully meet the 2020 objective, and to progress towards the 2050 goals. To make this possible, different directions are proposed. All of these directions of progress will be enabled throughout the foreseen execution of 9 major Technology Streams: Innovative Aircraft Architecture, to investigate some radical transformations of the aircraft architecture. The aim of this Technology Stream is to demonstrate the viability of some most promising advanced aircraft concepts (identifying the key potential showstoppers & exploring relevant solutions, elaborating candidate concepts) and assessing their potentialities. Advanced Laminarity as a key technological path to further progress on drag reduction, to be applied to major drag contributors: nacelle and wing; This Technology Stream aims to increase the Nacelle and Wing Efficiencies by the mean of Extended Laminarity technologies. High Speed Airframe, to focus on the fuselage & wing step changes enabling better aircraft performances and quality of the delivered mobility service, with reduced fuel consumption and no compromise on overall aircraft capabilities (such as low speed abilities & versatility). Novel Control, to introduce innovative control systems & strategies to gain in overall aircraft efficiency. The new challenges that could bring step change gains do not lay in the optimisation of the flight control system component performing its duty of controlling the flight, but in opening the perspective of the flight control system as a system contributing to the global architecture optimization. It could contribute to sizing requirements alleviations thanks to a smart control of the flight dynamics. Novel Travel Experience, to investigate new cabins including layout and passenger oriented equipment and systems as a key enabler of product differentiation, having an immediate & direct physical impact on the traveller, and with a great potential in terms of weight saving & eco-compliance. Next Generation Optimized Wing, leading to progress in the aero-efficiency and the ground testing of innovative wing structures; The challenge is to develop and demonstrate new wing concepts (including architecture) that will bring significant performance improvements (in drag & weight) while improving affordability and enforcing stringent environmental constraints. Optimized High Lift Configurations, to progress on the aero-efficiency of wing, engine mounting & nacelle integration for aircraft who needs to serve small, local airports thanks to excellent field performances. Advanced Integrated Structures, to optimize the integration of systems in the airframe along with the validation of important structural advances and to make progress on the production efficiency and manufacturing of structures. Advanced Fuselage to introduce innovation in fuselage shapes and structures, including cockpit & cabins. New concepts of fuselage are to be introduced to support the future aircrafts and rotorcrafts. More global aero structural optimizations can lead to further improvements in drag & weight in the context of a growing cost & environmental pressure, including emergence of new competitors. Due to the large scope of technologies undertaken by the Airframe ITD, addressing the full range of aeronautical portfolio (Large passenger Aircraft, Regional Aircraft, Rotorcraft, Business Jet and Small transport Aircraft) and the diversity of technology paths and application objectives, the above technological developments and demonstrations are structured around 2 major Activity Lines, allowing to better focus the integrated demonstrations on a consistent core set of user requirements, and, when appropriate, better serve the respective IADPs: Activity Line 1: Demonstration of airframe technologies focused towards High Performance & Energy Efficiency (HPE); Activity Line 2: Demonstration of airframe technologies focused toward High Versatility and Cost Efficiency (HVE) ITD Engines In Clean Sky the industry leaders committed to build and test seven engine ground demonstrators covering all the civil market. SAGE 3 (ALPS) first flight 45

46 Clean Sky 2 Interim Evaluation Report 30 June 2017 The goals were to validate to TRL 6 a 15% reduction in CO2 compared to 2000 baseline, a 60% reduction in NOX and a 6dB noise reduction. This is roughly 75% of the ACARE 2020 objectives. Following the worst economic downturn and the consequent changes to market assumptions Clean Sky s SAGE has adjusted its content to ensure these goals remain achievable. Apart from the consequent delay to the open rotor programme which means that TRL6 was not possible by 2016, the bulk of SAGE objectives remain on track. An open rotor ground demonstrator will run and confirm the CO 2 objective; a lean burn combustion ground demonstrator will run to confirm the NO X objective. A GTF has already run to confirm the CO 2 improvements and noise advantage of such a configuration. An advanced turbo-shaft engine has also run to ensure the environmental goals extend across the whole market while SAGE 3 has run for the first time to validate the cost and weight advantages of an advanced dressings configuration and an advanced low pressure system. The original plans for the open rotor from both Airbus and the engine manufacturers had to be revised and require further work to confirm both the advantages and credibility of this novel concept. For Clean Sky 2, Engines ITD will build on the success of SAGE to validate more radical engine architectures to a position where their market acceptability is not determined by technology readiness. The platforms or demonstrators of these engines architectures are summarized below: Open Rotor Flight Test, : A 2nd version of a Geared Open Rotor demonstrator carrying on Clean Sky SAGE 2 achievements and aimed to validate TRL 6 will be tested on ground and then on the Airbus A340 flying test bed (see IADP LPA Programme). From the initial SAGE 2 demonstrator some engine modifications aimed to various improvements, control system update, and engine/aircraft integration activities will be necessary. Ultra High Propulsive Efficiency (UHPE) demonstrator addressing Short / Medium Range aircraft market, : Design, development and ground test of a propulsion system demonstrator to validate the low pressure modules and nacelle technology bricks necessary to enable an Ultra High By-pass Ratio engine (e.g. advanced low pressure fan, innovative nacelle modules, gearbox, pitch change mechanism if any, high speed power turbine). This ground demonstrator will be built around an existing high pressure core. Business aviation / Short range regional Turboprop Demonstrator, : Design, development and ground testing of a new turboprop engine demonstrator in the thermal hp class. The base line core of ARDIDEN3 will be improved specifically for turboprop application (compressor up-date, combustion chamber, power turbine) and then integrated with innovative gear box, new air inlet and innovative propeller. Advanced Geared Engine Configuration (HPC and LPT technology demonstration), : Design, development and ground testing of a new demonstrator to validate key enablers to reduce CO 2 emissions and noise as well as engine weight. Key elements are: improvement of efficiencies, reduction of parasitic energy flows, innovative lightweight and temperature resistant materials, low pressure turbine and exhaust noises reduction. On compressor side compression system rigs will be build, in which the planned compressor technologies - in particular relevant for interactions between low pressure, high pressure and static structure - can be tested and achieve TRL6. Very High Bypass Ratio (VHBR) Large Turbofan demonstrator, : Design, development, building, ground testing and flight testing of an engine to demonstrate key technologies on a scale suitable for large engines. An existing engine will provide the core gas generator used for the demonstrator. Key technologies included in this demonstrator will be: integrated low pressure system for a high power very-high bypass ratio engine (fan, compressor, gearbox, LP turbine, VAN), Engine core optimisation and integration, and optimised control systems. Very High Bypass Ratio (VHBR) Middle of Market Turbofan technology, : Development and demonstration of technologies in each area to deliver validated powerplant systems matured for implementation in full engine systems. Research and demonstration will require the following: behaviour of fans at low speeds and fan pressure ratios and structural technology, aerodynamic and structural design of low pressure turbines for high speed operation, Systems Integration of novel accessory and power gearboxes, optimised power plant integration, Compressor efficiency, and control & electrical power system technology developments. 46

47 Light weight and efficient jet-fuel reciprocating engine The Small Aero-Engine Demonstration projects related to SAT [Small air Transport] will focus on small fixed-wing aircraft in the general aviation domain, and their power-plant solutions spanning from piston/diesel engines to small turboprop engines. The ITD engine Work Package 7 focuses on piston engines burning jet fuels, in the power range suitable for general aviation, from 5 to 19 seats. These technologies will bring new solutions to replace old gasoline leaded fuel pistons or small turbines for single and twin engine aircraft. The scope includes the core engine in order to improve the power density, but also the equipment as the turbocharger, the propeller integration and the aircraft installation optimization Reliable and more efficient operation of small turbine engines This area in the Engines ITD will focus on the the reliability and efficiency gains in small turbine engines demonstration project for the business and general aviation such as reference 19 seat aircraft, developing leading edge technologies, design tools and manufacturing technologies for application in both, spiral development programs as well as new engine architectures ITD SYS While systems and equipment account for a small part of the aircraft weight and environmental footprint, they play a central role in aircraft operation, flight optimisation, and air transport safety at different levels: Direct contributions to environmental objectives: optimised green trajectories, electrical taxiing, more electrical aircraft approach, and have a direct impact on CO 2 emissions, fuel consumption, perceived noise, air quality, weight gain. Enablers for other innovations: for example, bleedless power generation, actuators, are necessary steps for the implementation of innovative engines or new aircraft configurations. Enablers for air transport system optimisation: many of the major improvements identified in SESAR, NextGen and Clean Sky for greening, improved mobility or ATS efficiency can only be reached through the development and the integration of on-board systems such as data link, advanced weather systems, trajectory negotiation, and flight management predictive capabilities. Smart answers to market demands: systems and equipment have to increase their intrinsic performance to meet new aircraft needs without a corresponding increase in weight and volume: kw/kg, flux/dm3 are key indicators of systems innovation. In Clean Sky, the Systems for Green Operations ITD has developed solutions for more efficient aircraft operation. Further maturation and demonstration as well as new developments are needed to accommodate the needs of the next generations of aircraft. In addition, the systemic improvements initiated by SESAR and NextGen will call for new functions and capabilities for environmental or performance objectives, but also for flight optimisation in all conditions, flight safety, crew awareness and efficiency, better maintenance, reduced cost of operations and higher efficiency. Finally, framework improvements will be needed to allow for more efficient, faster and easier-to-certify development and implementation of features and functions. The Systems ITD in Clean Sky 2 will address these challenges through the following actions: Work on specific topics and technologies to design and develop individual equipment and systems and demonstrate them in local test benches and integrated demonstrators (up to TRL 5). The main technological domains to be addressed are cockpit environment and mission management, computing platform and networks, innovative wing systems (WIPS, sensors, and actuators), landing gears and electrical systems. Other contributing activities are foreseen and will be carried on by core partners and partners. The outcome of these developments will be demonstrated systems ready to be customized and integrated in larger settings. An important part of this work will be to identify potential synergies between future aircraft at an early stage, to reduce duplication. Customisation, integration and maturation of these individual systems and equipment in IADPs demonstrators. This will enable full integrated demonstrations in IADPs and assessment of benefits in representative conditions. Transverse actions will also be defined to mature processes and technologies with potential impact on all systems, either during development or operational use. Examples of 47

48 Clean Sky 2 Interim Evaluation Report 30 June 2017 these transverse actions can be development framework and tools, simulation, incremental certification, integrated maintenance, eco-design etc TA ECO Design The Eco-Design Transverse Activity (TA) has the aim to introduce in ITDs/IADPs activities more valuable eco compliant technologies from a whole product life-cycle perspective and covering the widest range of aeronautical products and systems. Eco-Design TA will be coordinated and managed by the leader in synergy with ITDs/IADPs development and objectives, with the core of technology development and demonstration residing in the ITDs/IADPs GAMs. Eco-Design TA will act in helping ITDs/IADPs technology screening through Vehicle Ecological Economic Synergy (VEES) sub-project, mainly regarding the most promising activities worth to be performed toward material, processes and resources innovations and worth to be adopted in future aeronautical products design. The technologies need to include concept toward increased less energy and resources demand, life of components, more recyclability, better re-use, going beyond the conventional cradle to grave approach and considering emerging aspects coming from future requirements to be met. New bottom-up proposals are also worth to be taken into consideration through dedicated workshops during the project. Eco-Design analysis (EDAS) sub-project process and tools will then help, basing on master scientific approaches, in the assessment of the benefits toward the definition of more eco-friendly products. Expansion of data base developed in CS1 together with new LCA methodologies and guidelines are worth to be investigated toward a design for environment vision for new aircrafts TA Small Air transport The SAT Initiative proposed in Clean Sky 2 represents the R&T interests of European manufacturers of small aircraft used for passenger transport (up to 19 passengers) and for cargo transport, belonging to EASA s CS-23 regulatory base. This includes more than 40 industrial companies (many of which SMEs) accompanied by dozens of research centres and universities. The New Member States industries feature strongly in this market sector. The community covers the full supply chain, i.e. aircraft integrators, engine and systems manufacturers and research organizations. The approach builds on accomplished FP6/FP7 projects. Key areas of societal benefit that will be addressed are: Multimodality and passenger choice More safe and more efficient small aircraft operation Lower environmental impact (noise, fuel, energy) Revitalization of the European small aircraft industry To date, most key technologies for the future small aircraft have reached an intermediate level of maturity (TRL3-4). They need further research and experimental demonstration to reach a maturity level of TRL5 or TRL6. The aircraft and systems manufacturers involved in SAT propose to develop, validate and integrate key technologies on dedicated ground demonstrators and flying aircraft demonstrators at an ITD level up to TRL6. The activity will be performed within the Clean Sky 2 ITDs for Airframe, Engines and Systems; with strong coordinating and transversally integrating leadership from within a major WP in Airframe ITD TA Technical evaluator A Technology and Impact Evaluation (TE) infrastructure remains an essential element within the Clean Sky PPP, and the TE will be reinforced and continued in order to ensure monitoring, assessment, communication, orientation of the JU and IADPs/ITDs/TAs. Impact Assessments, currently focused on noise and emissions, will be expanded and evaluated against the Programme s delivered value. Where applicable they will include additional 48

49 impacts, such as the mobility/connectivity benefits or increased productivity of Clean Sky 2 concepts. The progress of each demonstration platform (ITDs and IADPs) will be monitored against well-defined environmental (Noise, CO 2, NO x ) and socio-economic (Mobility/Connectivity, Employment, GDP impact) benefits and targets. In the case of full vehicle-level demonstrations as in the IADPs, the core aircraft performance characteristics will be reported by the IADP to the TE under the responsibility of the leading company. The IADPs will provide verification and validation of the aircraft designs proposed. In the case of the Clean Sky 2 ITDs, the TE will enable an aircraft-level synthesis of results in such a way (via concept aircraft ) that the ITD results can be shown at aircraft level and evaluated within the Airport and Air Transport System alongside IADP results. The TE Impact Evaluator function will reside within the JU. Impact Assessments of Clean Sky 2 outputs will be the responsibility of the TE Impact Evaluator and will focus on aggregate impacts. Based on lessons learnt in Clean Sky, the following principles will be followed: The Progress Monitoring of Clean Sky 2 achievements versus defined environmental and societal objectives will be established via an efficient and effective interfacing between TE and the ITD/IADPs through dedicated work packages (TE WP2 and ITD IADP dedicated WPs). The evaluation at Mission Level will be done by integrating ITD outputs into TE concept aircraft / rotorcraft models (including innovative long term aircraft configurations); and in the case of IADPs receiving IADP concept aircraft / rotorcraft models. The concept aircraft/rotorcraft models will be input for impact assessments at Airport & ATS Levels. The composition and rules of procedure of the governing body of the Technology Evaluator has been adopted by the CS Governing Board in April ACARE Objectives Clean Sky 1 was established on the basis of the ACARE Vision 2020, relative to a year 2000 technology baseline. It reported, at its closing, excellent progress in having demonstrated the feasibility of achieving these targets in the next aircraft fleet renewal cycle. The completion of some of the major demonstrator work in Clean Sky 2 will paint the year 2020 aircraft technology picture and its estimated environmental impact mitigation achievements. But Clean Sky 2 is also taking on the challenge of the ACARE Flightpath 2050 vision as measured against a year 2014 technology baseline. Vision 2020 Flightpath 2050 reduction of CO2 50% 75% reduction of NOx 80% 90% reduction of noise relative to % 65% The contribution of Clean Sky 2 is targeted as shown below: No achievements can be reported this early in the programme but it is clear that these targets bring traditional technologies to its limits and will need real breakthroughs to meet. The seven year 49

50 Clean Sky 2 Interim Evaluation Report 30 June 2017 commitment and the high quality research partners can accelerate breakthroughs through their early lifecycle phases. The best opportunities can be accelerated into a demonstrator, or at least level of validation that reliable assessments can be made. As in Clean Sky 1, the Technology Evaluator will be the integrator of the contribution of all the advances realised towards the environmental impact mitigation goals of VISION The Eco design effort will contribute, as it did in Clean Sky 1, materials, processes, manufacturing, repairs and recycling improvements (both on metallic and composites aircraft components) to improve eco-compliance in the aeronautical sector. The LCA database and tools developed in will be further evolved and ensure that the EU remains at the forefront in this area The transport sector addressed is broader in Clean Sky 2. The 19 seater commuter studies adapt the materials, processes and systems from the larger aircraft research streams and will apply the new MAESTRO engine to meet European mobility objectives Impact The achievement of real world impact for a research programme is seen in the contribution it makes to the scientific body of knowledge through setting new baselines in state of the art, through the accrual of new intellectual property and finally in the implementation of new technologies in commercial products. In addition there is added value in raising public awareness (or at least interested public awareness) in the activities and accomplishments of the programme through communication activities. The contribution to the scientific body of knowledge is realised primarily through the publishing efforts of the research and academic participants in the programme and typically consists of journal publications, conference proceedings, magazine articles and etc. An additional effort is made to target technical publications which are public deliverables in the set of documents produced by each work package. Communication activities tend to be more top down initiated by the JU Programme Office, in Clean Sky through an ambitious communication plan that is discussed later. The JU Programme Office also provides supporting material, including a copyrighted identity package, to researchers desiring to undertake a communication activity. A Clean Sky web presence has been established since the start of the programme and has undergone two major renovations to improve the openness and transparency of Clean Sky activities, policies and decisions. It is noted that the projects and partners selected as a result of open calls for proposals should also be included in the website content. In addition, the level of technical insight is quite limited in comparison to other projects that have structured their websites as a repository for the public deliverables (technical publications) of the project and provide high quality search capability. It is very difficult to obtain insight in a structured manner into the implementation of new technologies in commercial products. At the top of the value chain in the aeronautical sector the timeframes associated with product development are long - it can take two decades to plan and develop a new aircraft (which may remain in service for a further 30 years). And the visibility of industrial uptake at lower levels in the supply chain, or for non-product exploitation such as simulation tools, is generally very low and may even involve technological advances in another sector such as automotive. Therein lies the importance of the visibility of contributions to the state of the art and intellectual property protection. Clean Sky has, in general, targeted a first wave of exploitable results available and ready for an implementation in a new product/update of an aircraft in the period 2022 to 2025 subject to market considerations. A second wave of technologies will be prepared for implementation in the period The survey (Table 7) conducted by the Commission in support of the evaluation showed that the impact of Clean Sky is expected by the participants to be high. 50

51 Overall, the project has fully achieved its objectives for the period and/or has delivered unexpected results with significant immediate or potential impact (even if not all objectives mentioned in the technical annex were 27% achieved) Overall, the project has achieved most of its objectives for the period with relatively minor deviations 55% Not applicable (project not yet completed) 16% The project(s) directly contribute (expected to contribute) to new products and services for your organisation? 86% Project was (is) aligned to the core business of my organisation (agree/strongly agree) 94% Project led (is expected to lead) to the establishment of new business relationships for my organisation (agree/strongly agree) 78% Project augmented (expected to augment) the capability of my organisation (agree/strongly agree) 90% Project required (will require) the development of new skills in my organisation (agree/strongly agree) 80% Table 7 Responses of the survey with respect to exploitation of research results Although exploitation aspects are to form part of the ITD Annual review agenda and of the ITD CS1 closure reports, it was noted that this is not done consistently by the ITDs. In any case, these ITD level documents were not part of the data set for the evaluation. However it has been demonstrated that celebrating success stories during the life of research projects, as the Clean Sky programme has extensively done, is an effective way of gaining insight into the impact of the research as realised through exploitation. There is clear evidence that the Clean Sky programmes are achieving technology insertion. Examples include: SAGE 5 with developed technology incorporated in the new Arrano engine and SAGE 3 Orca (SME) Composite Annulus filler which was the winner of a JEC Innovation Award and may be part of an engine retrofit programme. 51

52 Clean Sky 2 Interim Evaluation Report 30 June Effectiveness of implementation Remarkable achievements were made in Clean Sky, both in technological advances and in the realisation of a well functioning partnership in the programme execution from a somewhat chaotic starting point. This is largely attributable to the recognition by all stakeholders that Clean Sky was the right approach to the coordination of demonstrator oriented aeronautics research and their resulting dedication to making it work. The formation of a JU around the ACARE Strategic Research agenda environmental objectives created the momentum for a focused coordinated response to the need for the greening of air transport. The alignment of the Clean Sky multipoint research agenda with the product development strategies of the founding members, both long and short term, gave them the incentive to invest in, and wholeheartedly support, Clean Sky. This momentum has continued into the second generation Clean Sky 2 programme. The global environment objectives have been updated to reflect the revised ACARE targets and the research agenda builds on the Clean Sky accomplishments in its further reach towards validated concepts for industrial implementation. The flexibility of the programme is somewhat improved and it will continue to evolve in response to both internal incentives (intermediate research results for example) and external changes affecting the priorities of the stakeholders. The engagement of the Core Partners through open calls for proposals rather than a selection by members (the Associates in Clean Sky) has still realised a participant spectrum that is very representative of the established aeronautical research community. The feedback regarding the quality of the proposal evaluator s consensus on the best ranked proposal for each topic was quite varied. For some of the Leaders the task of integrating a previously unknown partner into the project was experienced as a threat to (at least) the progress and perhaps to the success of the demonstrator effort. In view of the obligation of the members in an ITD to take up the slack for an underperforming player, this anxiety is understandable. The more robust Leaders, for example Airbus, Safran and Rolls Royce, experienced the selection of new players as an opportunity to broaden their research supply chain. It was also interesting to note that, through successful competition on several Core Partner call topics, industrial entities such as GE were able to obtain a significant participation in the Clean Sky 2 programme. The independent implementation of the JUs as a Union Body imposed, despite of the related privileges, a set of financial management and reporting requirements that were implemented in parallel by the Commission for the newly created JUs in FP7. The resulting administrative burden on the private members turned out to be at least equivalent to the Seventh Framework practice, a situation that the implementing Sherpa group regretted. They recommended reconsideration of this in the course of ongoing changes to Financial Regulations but were not heeded. The revised Financial Regulation, supplemented with a Commission Delegated Regulation were implemented in the CS2 Establishment Regulation. The original provision that the JU could tailor its approach where the specific operating needs of the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking so require, subject to the prior consent of the Commission at 6(1) was removed. There was at least one major change to the CS2 administration in that the indirect costs are no longer eligible costs due to flat rating. But to report the in-kind (total) costs the beneficiaries must now report separately the eligible costs and the indirect costs, both part of the CS2 accounts. It was also identified that the audit burden increased substantially but this was somewhat mitigated for the grant beneficiaries by combining the audit requirements on behalf of the different EU funding bodies into one review (Common Audit Strategy). The value added of the effort by the JU and at the beneficiaries to meet the requirements imposed in the H2020 framework does seem to merit closer examination. As for Clean Sky 1, the JU was not formally part of the Horizon 2020 programme, although subject to its Rules of Participation [7]. In Clean Sky 1 the administrative implementation was done bottom up by the JU in a best of both worlds approach where they had recourse to the FP7 operational infrastructure as a model that could be imported to the programme. The JU developed and administered the Grant Agreements for Members, eventually in a purpose made IT system that 52

53 incorporated Clean Sky specific reporting and monitoring requirements. Related processes were developed in a bottom up approach that was well able to meet the needs of both the public and private stakeholders. The Clean Sky 2 Establishment Regulation [1] however included the requirement to establish a delegation agreement between the CSJU and the Commission which resulted (a JU does not have a great deal of negotiating power!) in the imposition of the H2020 protocols on the CSJU. As we cannot find a public reference to this, the relevant provisions are reproduced below. Delegation Agreement CSJU H2020 Delegation Agreement for Joint Undertakings: June 2014 Article 5 The CSJU shall. (a) Apply Article 6 (including H2020 Grant Agreements and IT tools for the management of grants) (g) Use the common Horizon 2020 IT tools, throughout the programme implementation cycle, for all the tasks delegated to it; (h) Use the common Horizon 2020 guidance documents established by the Commission (i) Use the support services provided by the Common Support Centre of DG Research and Innovation of the Commission (CSC); (j) Use the support services provided by the Research Executive Agency (REA) as established in REA s instrument of Delegation; (k) Follow the horizontal instructions by the Commission and harmonised interpretations of the rules governing the implementation of the programme. This seems to be an undo of the principle basis for the establishment of a JU as a delegated funding body that can act flexibly and efficiently to execute the programme it is responsible for and should never have been imposed by the Commission. The impact is still being absorbed by the CSJU but it is increasingly obvious that the mechanisms developed (and being developed) by the Commission to manage over 70 B of investment in a various types of instruments is not well adapted to the programme management needs of the CSJU itself. The progressive implementation of this contract is likely a major contributor to the perceived increase in the H2020 administrative burden on the beneficiaries. 7.2 Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking's performance in Clean Sky 2 JU mission and governance The required changes to the Clean Sky JU to re-establish in accordance with the CS2 Establishment Regulation [1] were accomplished and generally the CSJU continues to operate effectively in this structure. The definition of roles and corresponding tasks and obligations are clear and are well presented in the Clean Sky Management Manual and its updates [23]. The structure appears to be logical and the sometimes complex decision making processes appear to be largely justified. In the following sections the intended role of some of the key bodies that comprised the JU are discussed together with the evaluators observations regarding their functioning in general (Figure 21). 53

54 Clean Sky 2 Interim Evaluation Report 30 June 2017 Figure 21 Overview on governance structure Governing board (GB) The composition, basic rights and obligations of the governing board established for the Clean Sky JU in FP7 were broadly speaking preserved in the Clean Sky 2 Establishment Regulation [1]. The public representative is the Commission. The same statutory private members of the Governing Board (the Leaders ) as in Clean Sky 1 are present (Airbus Helicopter was formerly Eurocopter) and three new Leaders are added: DLR for the TE, Evektor and Piaggio for the SAT and MTU has joined Safran and Rolls Royce in the Engines ITD. Whereas Clean Sky 1 had a fixed two Leaders per ITD this varies in Clean Sky 2. One Core Partner representative per IADP/ITD/TA on a rotating basis represents this member group in the GB as the statutory Associates did in Clean Sky 1. The CS1 Associates representation in the GB is preserved until the respective CS1 ITD is closed down, ultimately at the end of The GB is the governing body of the CSJU. Whereas in Clean Sky 1 each member had one equal vote with a veto right for the Commission representative on matters related to their financial contribution, the Commission holds 50% of the vote in CS2. It is reported that this has contributed to slower decision making on the budgets and technical programme. This particularly affects the preparation of the open calls where the detailed topic descriptions are submitted by the Commission representative to and internal review similar to an H2020 call. As it was our understanding that the technical programme was intended to be a matter between the CSJU, on behalf of the public interest, and the GB private members who adopt its execution, the need for a Commission approval cycle is not well grounded. Decisions are explicitly to be made in consensus ( best endeavours) but 80% majority is prescribed as the fallback. The private members cannot of course realise a majority but the Commission plus 7 of the 22 private members (after CS1 is closed) can. The Executive Director and the chair or vice chair of the SRG and the SciCom also participate in the GB on a non-voting basis. The ED is a full participant, the others are observers. The GB chairperson is now elected for a period of two years, rather than one, and no vicechairperson is identified. This position has developed into a key role for the Clean Sky programme 54

55 and includes extensive advocacy and external representation duties which are carried out effectively and enthusiastically. For continuity reasons the term of the Chairman in place in September 2016 has been continued until a new Executive Director has been appointed. Ric Parker (Rolls-Royce) is continued as Chairman of the Clean Sky Governing Board until an Executive Director is appointed. 24 October 2014 Ric Parker (Rolls-Royce) is elected Chairman of the Clean Sky Governing Board for 2015 and 2016 (CS2 provisions); Bruno Stoufflet (Dassault Aviation) is elected Vice Chairman 20 March 2014 Ric Parker (Rolls-Royce) is elected Chairman of the Clean Sky Governing Board for 2014; Bruno Stoufflet (Dassault Aviation) is elected Vice Chairman. 13 December 2012 Alessandro Franzoni until May then Massimi Lucchesini (Alenia Aermacchi)is elected Chairman of the Clean Sky Governing Board for 2013; Ric Parker (Rolls Royce) is elected Vice Chairman 14 December 2011 Charles Champion (Airbus) is re-elected Chairman of the Clean Sky Governing Board for 2012; Catalin Nae (INCAS) is elected Vice Chairman. 17 December 2010 Rolf Henke (DLR) is elected Vice Chairman of the Clean Sky Governing Board for Charles Champion (Airbus) is elected Chairman of the Clean Sky 14 October 2010 Governing Board for March 2010 Marc Ventre (Safran) and Rafael Acedo (EADS CASA) are respectively reelected Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Clean Sky Governing Board for Marc Ventre (Safran) is elected Chairman of the Clean Sky Governing Board for 2009; Rafael Acedo (EADS CASA) is elected Vice Chairman Table 8 List of chairs and vice chairs of the governing board. The GB is required to meet at least twice a year but a quarterly meeting schedule has become the norm. The ED is charged with preparing the agenda and supporting material in advance with the Clean Sky Sherpa group, an informal body including representatives of the members. There is some indication that the agenda is well prepared but the supporting material less so. It would be helpful if the Sherpa s had draft documents for internal review prior to the GB meeting. The GB adopted a very collegial style of governance and in practice, and largely due to the role of the Sherpa group, decisions are generally made in consensus. This behind the scene consensus development can also lead to a long decision preparation lead time. And while it saves time in the Governing Board meeting it does bring some rubber stamping into the meeting format and offers less opportunity for discussion and engagement in the approval process. It was also noted that GB members may reserve their opinions when real future challenges are discussed so perhaps the GB is unfortunately not the place for developing a real strategic discussion. Key GB decisions are now published on the CS website to the benefit of the transparency of this important role. The role of the Governing Board seems to be less strategic than would have been expected. On the one hand, it does have a high level of operational responsibility. Plus the private members may find that important matters, like the programme scope and budget allocations, should be fixed for the life of the programme. On the other hand, the GB representatives (generally the top level management of the research organisation of the member company) would frequently delegate attendance at the GB meeting to a more operational member of his or her staff, typically the leader of the research scope of the member. A better separation of the execution of the research work and its governance should be realised with members representatives selected from their senior technical staff who are not directly involved in IADP and ITD activities The JU Programme Office The JU is directly accountable to the European Parliament for the autonomous management of its research agenda and financial commitments. The JU Programme Office is the independent legal entity charged with this responsibility and the Executive Director is its Chief Executive Officer. It is the interface between all stakeholders and coordinates the contributions to the development of work plans and respective reports. Moreover, the coordination of the content of the calls for proposals, 55

56 Clean Sky 2 Interim Evaluation Report 30 June 2017 including evaluation and payments, is organised by the JU Programme Office. About three percent of the JU budget (78 M ) is allocated to the JU Programme Office over the life of the programme. The ED is supported by an operational team of Project Officers, including a Coordinating Project Officer and a Clean Sky 2 Programme Manager who are in many matters interchangeable with the Executive Director. He is further supported by an Administrative and Financial team and by the staff roles required to assure processes and infrastructure that support the operations of the JU Programme Office. The JU staff is selected through the Commission recruitment system. The Executive Director is appointed (and may be removed) by the Governing Board and in turn appoints the staff of the JU. The team of Project Officers fulfil the coordinating and monitoring responsibilities of the JU Programme Office in relation to the research activities carried out in the IADP/ITD/TAs and participate in the related Steering Committee and other periodic management meetings. They accomplish this through a peer relationship with the ITD Leaders, made feasible by their high technical competence, and through key intervention opportunities. The annual review at IADP/ITD/TA level with the support of external experts (and a mid-year follow up on the resulting recommendations) and the development and execution of the Calls for Proposals from the Steering Committee are the main events. They have generally performed exceptionally well in finding the balance between ensuring that the needs of the research programme are met to the greatest possible extent and that the formalities of being a European Union body are properly discharged by the participating members and partners. They have remarkably achieved relationships of mutual respect with their private entity counterparts and their role in achieving appropriate accountability for the disbursement of public funds is exemplary. The Administrative and Financial team deals, patiently and exactingly, with the administration of the projects (grant agreements), financing and reporting obligations and the logistics of the JU including meetings management. It is quite an achievement that both the private and public partners were satisfied with their performance in this role. The financial controlling methods of the JU were carefully crafted to meet all of the applicable requirements and the annual review of the Court of Auditors gave almost all clean reports i.e. without reservations, a remarkable accomplishment. The consistent annual discharge given by the European Parliament was always a cause for celebration. The head of Administration and Finance is also charged with the management of the facilities and IT supporting the JU operations. The ED is supported by three staff officers with responsibilities for Audit/Quality Management, Accounting (Programme Controller) and Communication. The intended internal audit capacity has been set aside in favour of a consultative role in process development and coordination, including risk management. The Communication team develops and executes an ambitious annual communication plan approved by the GB. The statutory term of appointment of the ED is seven years and the ED that launched the Clean Sky programme, and was lauded for his performance with the CEAS Gold Award in 2017, was appointed in September Remarkably, little preparation for the recruitment of his replacement appears to have been undertaken when his term ended the position (and the function description) was only posted in February 2016 [27]. A high standard of Commission intelligence, in addition to industry knowledge and an entrepreneurial attitude, was solicited to ensure that the holder of this role is, in the longer term, a qualified Commission employee: proven experience in managing significant financial resources in a national, European and/or international environment and involving funding from public sources. a good understanding of the European Union institutions, their functioning and interaction; a sound knowledge of, and experience with, European Union and/or international transport policy, in particular aviation policy; 56

57 The Commission appointment process is long winded and the qualified and available candidates that solicited found other opportunities before an offer was made to them. It was estimated by the Commission representative at the GB meeting in March 2017 that filling this position would take at least another year. The interim ED appointed by the Commission, who was the Head of the Aviation Unit (H3) of the DG RTD when Clean Sky was incubated, is brilliantly bridging the continuity conduit between the departed and incumbent ED but does unfortunately not bring the aeronautics background of the function description to the role: a very good capacity to manage and monitor large projects; a good understanding of the aeronautical industry; good understanding of research and development in the field of activities of Clean Sky 2 programme and knowledge of regulatory policies and practices relevant to the Joint Undertaking s fields of action strong innovation capabilities, ability to generate new and fresh ideas in promoting, programming and exploiting the results of the Clean Sky 2 JU The ED function involves a lot of negotiation with the Commission to keep inappropriate requirements from affecting the momentum of the Clean Sky programme. A Commission appointee is more likely (we say carefully as there is no evidence of this) to focus on introducing Commission policy priorities into the CSJU practice. It would be tragic if the groundswell of Clean Sky support, from a diversity of stakeholders and outsiders (even globally) were to be becalmed by this unfortunate interregnum IADP and ITD Steering Committees The IADP and ITDs are the main operational units for the execution of the Clean Sky research program and their management through the their Steering Committees was foreseen in the CS2 Establishment Regulation[9]. The Grant Agreements for Members establish the hierarchy of responsibilities within the programme as well as the allocation of budgets to the IAPD/ITD work packages and are updated annually (or biannually if preferable) in accordance with the Annual Implementation Plan. The role of the Steering Committees are then to manage the goals, resources, responsibilities, risks and progress of the IAPD/ITDs in accordance with the planning and reporting drumbeat of the Clean Sky Programme Management Manual [23]. Often the Clean Sky work is implemented in a Lead company s project management system to accomplish this. It must be noted that, in the event that one of the IAPD/ITD members fails to deliver, the remaining partners take up the burden to avoid impacting the whole activity cluster. It is not clear how this is formalised by it is implicitly understood and put into practice. Each Steering Committee is chaired by the appointed Leader and is composed of the participating members as well as the ED and a representative of the programme office, which will be usually the responsible PO. The Steering Committees monitor the technical progress and make decisions on behalf of the JU on technical matters specific to their research scope, the call topics to be proposed to the JU and the overall budget allocation within the IAPD/ITD. An unfortunate consequence of the information needs of the JU is that the work of the Steering Committees tend towards more administrative than strategic matters. Their meetings, which take place at least four times a year, may (and usually are) attended by EC representatives as observers and other interested ITD leaders. The TE Steering Committee differs in the appointment of the ED as its chair and a composition composed of the other ITD Leaders in order the coordinate the flow of information with the TE. The TAs (Eco-Design and Small Aircraft Transport) are run by Coordination Committees that oversee the fulfilment of their missions by work being done in the IAPD/ITDs. The Steering Committee constellation of actors must handle challenge of achieving adequate communication and sharing of information when some of it may be competition sensitive (and engineers are conservative in this assessment). A high level of trust in the confidentiality of the CSJU archive has ensured that deliverables are relevant, although they are still somewhat sanitised. The 57

58 Clean Sky 2 Interim Evaluation Report 30 June 2017 integration of independently selected Core Partners has sometimes been sensitive when these entities are also part of a competitors supply chain. The Executive Director constituted a Programme Coordination Committee, comprised of the IAPD/ITD/TA Leaders and their JU counterpart Project Officer. Although intended to handle topics that cross subunit boundaries, such as interfaces, inputs/outputs between ITDs (and the TE), and monitor programme level risks it has in practice also an administrative focus. The standard agenda includes matters such as the status of GAMs and GAPs, the evolution of budget, the preparation and feedback from the GB meetings, the dissemination aspects, including discussion about IPR issues and the role and contributions from subunits in the communication events. In many instances they must address flowing down JU directives as to process and data. As an IADP Leader in a recent PCC meeting expressed it is easy to tell me this or that needs to be done but I have to get 30 or 40 others to do it! The JU Programme Office should be very proactive in developing pragmatic and user friendly solutions to the information needs of the JU by screening them for relevance and consolidating reporting where possible. Regardless of the efforts of this group, the structural information exchange between subunits on technical matters is considered to be poor. However the JU has organised dedicated, technical, transversal workshops on several matters: noise, more electric aircraft, WIPS, etc, with the participation of members from different subunits and experts appointed by the JU and established thereby another best practice States Representatives group (SRG) The SRG is a statutory advisory body established to maintain a close relationship between the Clean Sky programme and the member states. It is composed of one representative of each Member State and of each other country associated to Horizon It meets at least twice a year in the company of the ED and the Chairman of the GB as the GB has a duty to follow up on SRG recommendations or proposals on a variety of matters. The SRG elects its chairman among its members. As well as representing the interests of research organisations on a geographical basis, they are also charged with providing insight in relevant national and regional research activities and identifying potential areas of cooperation with Clean Sky as obviously obtaining synergy and avoiding duplication would be mutually beneficial, at least in principle. It is noted that the SRG was not however intended to fulfil the Committee role as foreseen in [28] in relation to the implementation of Clean Sky. The SRG is kept up to date on the progress of the Clean Sky research programme, consulted on new applications, accessions and changes to the Membership and changes to the strategic orientation of the programme. They have taken a particular interest in the planning and outcome of calls for proposals and tenders and the involvement of SMEs in Clean Sky which has been a very constructive role for the SRG. The SRG role in relation to their nationally funded research programs has not however been well established and a policy of avoiding an exchange of information with Clean Sky, to avoid interference in national research strategy, appears to prevail. However the Clean Sky JU seems to have demonstrated a level of maturity in its stakeholder relations that their interest and potential contribution to national research planning should not be construed as interference. Overall the SRG does not seem to have fulfilled its full potential in maintaining a close relationship with the member states in order to influence the Clean Sky programme or to develop synergies with national research strategies. This shortcoming may be related to the appointees not having an appropriate level of influence in their own country and the frequent substitution in attendance that hindered continuity in their contributions. 58

59 Scientific Committee (SciCom) The Scientific Committee (SciCom) is the successor of the Clean Sky 1 Scientific and Technological Advisory Board (STAB) that was established by the ED and it is now a statutory Advisory Board. It was constituted from responses to a Call for expression of interest (in October 2014) [29] with the objective of attracting academic researchers (professors), (former) high-level representatives of research centres and high-level independent experts with an industrial background. They contribute a good appreciation of the state of the art and are capable of analysing Clean Sky from the perspectives of environmental Impact, technology and scientific trends and societal and economic considerations. They are a valuable (and enthusiastic) resource for the JU Programme Office. They themselves would however like to strive for a STAB meeting agenda balance that put more focus on technological challenges than on Clean Sky internal management. It was interesting to observe that the STAB (now SciCom) meeting is quite interactive and in the course of the meeting new synergies and opportunities are created, particularly in relation to technological education. Aside from tackling specific matters at the request of the ED, such as assessments made during the formation of Clean Sky 2, members of the SciCom are individually active in the annual reviews of the IADP/ITD/TAs where their observations form a part of the review report. From their awareness, and sometimes involvement in, other EC programmes (transport and other relevant thematic areas), national programmes and perhaps company internal programmes, they have a good eye for the leading edgeness and accelerated industrialisation potential of Clean Sky technologies. Means to better engage that perspective should be evolved in Clean Sky 2. The members had been incidentally consulted regarding the relevance of proposed call topics and they now reviewing all the topics planned for a call. CfP. It is not foreseen however that they will review CfP topic descriptions, which would have been a burdensome workload. Although they may consult externally, SciCom members do not discuss proposal specifics outside their meeting Other Stakeholders The Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research and Innovation (ACARE) created important and formative references for the European aeronautics research community such as Vision 2020 and the Flightpath 2050 accompanied by their respective Strategic Research Agenda s (SRA) [15, 30] resp. the Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda s (SRIA). It is an independent, volunteer organisation that strives to engage all relevant stakeholders in its constituent bodies, such as working groups. Whereas the CS1 Establishment Regulation mentioned ACARE as a potential advisory body, The Clean Sky Joint Undertaking should rely on a number of external advisory bodies, and the ACARE European Technology Platform for Aeronautics,, this is not present in the CS2 one. The European Parliament approves the Establishment Regulation for Clean Sky and its annual financial discharge. MEP Christian Ehler was the appointed rapporteur during the CS2 formation and keeps in active communication with the CSJU. There are also many informal relationships with for example, the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) and the Committee on Transport and Tourism as well as the intergroup Sky & Space, an informal group of MEPs interested in the related issues of air transport and space science. Under the lead of MEP Monika Hohlmeier (since the 2014 election) contacts have intensified and the CSJU played an important role co-organising the 1 st and 2 nd Aeronautics Conferences organised in the EP. MEPs are frequently guests at Clean Sky events and appear in general to have maintained a positive attitude to the JU and its accomplishments. The Aerospace and Defence Industries Association of Europe (ASD) identifies itself as the voice of European Aeronautics, Space, Defence and Security Industries and represents over 3,000 companies. It has played an important role in promoting Clean Sky and generating continued political support for the continuation of the CSJU. 59

60 Clean Sky 2 Interim Evaluation Report 30 June 2017 The former Clean Sky ED initiated collaboration with academia above and beyond the participation of universities in Calls for proposal with the creation of the Clean Sky Academy. This informal body was created in 2014 to structure a stronger engagement of, for example, PhD students into Clean Sky research. As a first step, the CS academy organised the well received Clean Sky Best PhD Award in 2017 and further steps in this initiative are being intensively explored. In the context of the overall distribution of turn-over in the aviation sector, the airline operators could perhaps have been represented in the group of members and contributed their insight in the operator s business model with regard e.g. to maintainability aspects. The R&D capabilities of airlines and MROs vary widely but these stakeholders played a role in CS1 as partners through CfPs that engage their specific competences and resources. A stronger engagement could be valuable. To involve consumer and passenger organisations as stakeholders in the Clean Sky scope of work is a very long reach and public events and consultations, as well as the JU contacts with the EP Transport Committee seems to be appropriate relationships with this stakeholder group. It would be more interesting for the CSJU to find, if it exists, an association of European airport noise experts to which the Clean Sky accomplishments in aircraft noise reduction could be promoted. Further options to connect stakeholders, such as a potential aeronautics ERA Net, do not seem to have been employed by the JU ERA Net are fore sure designed for creating transnational publicpublic-partnerships, but there might be synergies when options to link to e.g. national programs are discussed Conclusions on Mission and Governance Clean Sky demonstrated that a coordinated participation of a broad range of actors in the common objective of reducing the environment impact of air transport, through developing innovative solutions and advancing them to a high level of industrial readiness, was an effective approach. The improved definition and management of the aeronautics research agenda reduces the fragmentation of the bottom up funding allocation through open calls for proposals in response to a broad topic description. The supply chain architecture of the programme has streamlined R & D management and the 7 year horizon has provided stability to the research agenda. Close engagement of the JU technical staff and cross disciplinary exchange of plans and accomplishments moves closer to the goal of ensuring that state of the art is the starting point for new research and that work is not duplicated or repeated by different research groups. The relatively smooth transition into Clean Sky 2, with similar architecture, processes and actors, should ensure the continuity of the Clean Sky legacy of open cooperation and benefit from its many hard learned lessons. The lack of a timely successor to Eric Dautriat is however a risk to the programme momentum. The recent Commission survey addressed the aspect of implementation of research results and contribution to competitiveness as: Do you agree with the EU cooperating with industry in the context of a public-private partnership so that aeronautics research accelerates the greening of aviation and increases the worldwide competitiveness of the European Aeronautics Industry? The response was overwhelmingly positive although based largely on anticipated impact as it will be some time yet before measurable results are seen. T 60

61 A balanced participation of a broad range of research entities is again engaged in the programme and the demonstrator focus has brought great opportunities for SME s to contribute leading edge solutions in product, as well as manufacturing and instrumentation, technology. A recent SME survey confirmed that the market potential of early engagement (the foot in the door effect) is a key inducement for SME participation. The wide range of simulation and wind tunnel testing leading to a demonstrator configuration has proven the effectiveness of the past European research specialisation policy but also permitted new players supported by regional funding to mature their capability. Academic participation is reasonable but may reflect, or may have even shaped, university labs capable of moving concepts from the feasibility stage to breadboard and beyond. There is a serious shortage of so-called blue sky research funding in the aeronautics domain. A Clean Sky Academy initiative was started to incubate new approaches to academic participation in Clean Sky. The contracts and administrative processes that were developed in Clean Sky were continued in Clean Sky 2 and no real issues with this aspect were identified in the beneficiary survey. But a negative experience in the transition from FP7 to H2020 seems to be indicated. Financial reporting, for example has again been a difficult learning curve and such Clean Sky 2 process issues distract project leadership from the programme itself, especially for smaller scale participants such as SME s. The poor performance of the web-based H2020 facilities now used for reporting and dissemination is a frequently heard complaint. Programmatic decision making takes longer and the added value of the Commission s internal consultation is not clear. Overall many stakeholders do not consider Clean Sky 2 as it is implemented in H2020 to be a simpler framework and there is concern for the future impact of the rollout of the CSJU Delegation Agreement Operational effectiveness This section examines the manner in which the JU manages the Clean Sky programme and its processes for continuously evolving the research content to maintain a focus on the EU policy goals. It examines the influence of the JU implementation on the quality of the participants engaged in the research as well as the calibre of the research conducted. It includes a discussion of the outreach efforts of the JU in ensuring that various stakeholder groups are informed about this ambitious European Union aeronautics research programme CS Programme Management Clean Sky Programme Management responsibilities encompass the planning and budgeting process, the call for proposal process, the administration of grants and the related cost claims, performance monitoring and quality assurance. Since the inception of Clean Sky 1 these responsibilities have been met with high priority and generally effectively addressed. The Clean Sky Management Manual [23] has been well maintained since its first issue in November 2010 to provide insight and guidance into the Clean Sky management processes. The potential to streamline, in particular grant administration, using procurement like methods familiar in private industry was excluded by the implementation of the CSJU as a Union Body but had been recommended for future JUs. The scope of Clean Sky 2 was established by the CLEAN SKY 2 Joint Technology Proposal [31] developed by the CSJU in collaboration with the members which, following a review by independent experts, was adopted as the programme technology and budgetary baseline. It forms the basis for the regularly updated Clean Sky 2 Development Plan [32] (CSDP), a top level description of the general development strategy and approach. The Clean Sky Development Plan is the plan to completion that is central to the planning and budgeting process and it is maintained under change control with some division of authorisation between the ED and the GB. As the timeline for processing budget requisitions is a full year, a 2 year rolling Work Programme for CS2 is issued annually and forms the basis for the funding of the CSJU and its activities. It describes the activities planned by each IADP/ITD, the global milestones and 61

62 Clean Sky 2 Interim Evaluation Report 30 June 2017 deliverables, the preliminary list of call topics (Core Partners and Partners) and the budget plan and is adopted by the GB at least every year. As neither of these documents comprehensively present the programme workbreakdown structure, planning or allocation of tasks, the Grant Agreement for Members is clearly the heart of the planning and budgeting process. Grant Agreements for Members (GAM) and Grant Agreements for Partners (GAP) are contractual documents that contain a detailed description of the work activities, deliverables, milestones and budget plan that are consistent with the CSDP and the AIP, respectively. The data used by the IADP/ITD Leaders to prepare the GAMs is in most cases an output of their corporate project management system, which is also their resource for their monitoring and reporting contribution. It is the responsibility of the POs to validate the consistency of the GAM data with the AIP. After two years of administering the GAMs manually in CS1 a suitable IT infrastructure (GMT) was implemented and has been continually improved to support the planning and budgeting process as well as grant administration and cost claim processing. GAPs however are implemented in the H2020 system and presumably merged by the JU in the budget overview. Monitoring is performed by the JU Programme Office on the basis of information provided by the IADP/ITD Leaders. The format has become standardised and stable and the quality is generally high. There are still challenges in achieving visibility of interfaces between the IADP/ITDs in this highly interlinked programme architecture, and in illuminating subjects that are addressed by several research groups. ITD Leaders report their progress on a quarterly basis in the form of a dashboard summary of the achievement vs plan for resources (budget), Deliverables and Milestones as well as Risks and mitigation measures. The consolidated dashboard and an overview of the technical progress is then reported to the GB. An example of this effective tool is shown below. An Annual Review of each ITDs' performance, organised by the JU, involves at least two independent experts in what is generally a 2 to 4 day event that brings together all of the members, and some partners, to review the technical activities and management information. The experts, who prepare conscientiously, are carefully chosen for their domain relevant knowledge and their continuity with the programme has given them a good level of credibility with the members and results in their recommendations being treated at least respectfully. A smaller mid year review is held to evaluate the implementation of the feedback from the Annual Review. The IADP/ITD will also conduct ad hoc reviews such as Design Reviews, TRL Gate Reviews, Test Readiness Reviews etc. which the PO may choose to attend. A Clean Sky 1 best practice was the conduct of dedicated reviews on a specific matter at the initiation of the ED. Clean Sky examples were the change of the Open Rotor architecture from direct drive to geared, electrical systems activities in the GRC ITD and the multifaceted research in wing ice protection. This practice will be continued in Clean Sky 2, with health monitoring a candidate for this. The CSMM [23] indicates the intention to codify this practice in a common discipline coordination methodology. The deliverable documents, as evidence of the research activity and its accomplishments, are reviewed and approved within the IADP/ITD for member contributions by the workpackage leaders and then in the IAPD/ITD Steering Committees. These are formalised checkpoints that lead to a final review, and if appropriate approval, by the responsible PO who may consult the SciCom members. The implementation of quality control of the partner deliverables, which for Clean Sky2 are directly delivered to the H2020 system, requires the approving PO to verify the quality with the topic manager before approving the deliverable. 62

63 IADP/ITD Leaders submit a written report shortly after year end that is consolidated into the Annual Activity Report (AAR) and had realised a reasonable quality and consistency by the 2013 AAR. Each member of the ITD submits the cost claims related to the work performed and the GMT systems supports the reimbursement of the claimed contribution and the related reporting. An overview of the overall programme planning and control process is shown below (Figure 22). Figure 22 Planning and control process in CS2 [23] The delegated project management approach to the Clean Sky programme seems to make it difficult to present a meaningful consolidated overview. Our request for management information (what, who, how much) at the second level of the work breakdown structure could not be realised. The basic information (WBS task participant budget relationship) are in the GMT only and the planning, interfaces, technology maps, risk register etc. seem (to us at least) to only be available as part of the annual review powerpoint presentations. It should be considered if some of these monitoring aspects could be integrated into the reporting to improve the transparency of the Clean Sky programme activities Clean Sky Quality Partners and Research Part of the Clean Sky raison d etre is to stimulate cooperation within the aeronautical research community on a focused set of objectives that achieve societal returns (that would not otherwise be investment priorities) and represent real and near term economic opportunities for the industrial participants. The role of the CSJU in designing (together with the Leaders) the Joint Technology Proposal for CS2 ensured the best allocation of the research among the best European players active in each areas at an appropriate level of funding. At the same time, less competitive regional and small transport aircraft partners (Leonardo/Alenia, Airbus DS ex Casa, Piaggio etc) that must start at a lower technology baseline are, through Clean Sky being jump started to apply innovative concepts in their products. 63

64 Clean Sky 2 Interim Evaluation Report 30 June 2017 The first tier of additional members, similar to the associates in CS1, were selected by independent evaluators in CS2, in open calls for core partners. This created some challenges when it disrupted established and trusted collaborations. Failed calls and long negotiations, or poorly performed work, can impact the result that the integrating Member is ultimately responsible for achieving which makes it difficult to delegate the selection of partners to evaluators. But new relationships can have their positive side and offer a richer experience that stimulates learning and raises competitiveness to broaden the field of future partners. The art was to ensure that the evaluators are aware of specific Clean Sky considerations in addition to the usual evaluation criteria and that was not always well performed. The next phase of recruitment, through open calls for partners, is ongoing and is generally a smoothly running process. A high quality of participants are being engaged and there is no longer a suggestion of bias through the participation of a private member representative in the evaluation panel. And a best effort is being made to screen topic descriptions for discriminatory requirements but it must be noted that a topic description for a contribution to a well-defined demonstrator platform will necessarily be much more detailed and demanding than the open topics characteristic of collaborative research calls. The overall assessment is that a high calibre research supply chain is being established and with good success in engaging new players, including a good representation among SMEs (in head count, if not in Euros SME s cannot deploy significant budgets). There are many opinions about the character of the Clean Sky research agenda as it was set by, and executed by, the participants in the project. We have applied here the considerations outlined in Annex 10.1 as indicated. Some demonstrator projects, such as the very ambitious CROR flight test, can unquestionably achieve step changes in performance but are certainly seen, at least by competitors, as too high a risk to be funded privately. Others, like the geared turbofan scaling of commercially available concepts, may be very close to market but are full of component level challenges that need innovative solutions. It is a well-established principle that public resources should not be re-directed away from risky and promising research projects toward companies that would likely perform equally well without this funding. [33] and the fact that Airbus and Safran chose very high goals for the Clean Sky participation is consistent with it. Other participants have perhaps reached less far technologically but have moved, through Clean Sky, much closer to a competitive and marketable product. No small part of the advances that will be made by, for example Alenia, CASA and Piaggio will be the result of having been involved in a programme with a major global OEM like Airbus due to the effective distribution of European aeronautical funding. The cost sharing basis for Clean Sky funding has avoided that public funding has crowded out these companies privately funded research. In fact is reported that the substantial private funding has been directed towards complementing Clean Sky ambition. And all of the research has been directed, appropriately, at subjects that target upon activities and projects where there is a significant gap between private and societal returns [34] although it is likely that some of the green technologies of Clean Sky results will not find industrial implementation until a regulatory regime makes them competitive market entrants. Innovation is generally considered to be a high risk investment the 5% dilemma it is called (on average only 5% of all technical projects averaged over all sectors will end up in commercially successful products (see Annex 10.1) but the Clean Sky demonstrator focus on technologies that have already passed through the real innovative phases raises the odds of successful achievements significantly. But demonstrators require that there are technologies in the innovation pipeline and many innovations were indeed tried and failed in the search for solutions to make the demonstrators feasible. The increased flexibility of the Clean Sky 2 programming model will help to ensure that research topics directly serve the development demonstrators. The strength of the Clean Sky funding model is that the private members set the research agenda (subject of course to external 64

65 evaluations) and finance half of the work involved. This ensures that there is a good, if not always visible, justification for everything that is done in the scope of the programme. A final note on the subject of participation must be the extent to which the Clean Sky implementation as a JTI, and the role of the JU Programme Office, affected how the participants experienced performing EU funded research. The relevant survey results showed that the level of effort required for administrative procedures were considered reasonable, with small IT irritations noted. But there were several comments from new entrants and SME s that were highly negative, to the extent of indicating that administration would be a barrier to future participation in EU funded research. However the JU Programme Office was highly regarded, both as helpful and responsive individuals and in their programme coordination role where the high quality of the documents they prepared was particularly noted. The merits of cooperation in the programme, such as freedom for innovation, networking, leveraging external know how and sharing expertise were all seen as important benefits of the JTI approach. This all corresponds with our personal experience at the Clean Sky Closing Forum on March which was conducted quite professionally yet in an informal and highly collegial atmosphere that included the Members of Parliament and Commission representatives that attended and spoke on this occasion CS Communication The JU Programme Office has, from the beginning of the Clean Sky programme, understood the importance of their communication activity to the success of the programme. The reach of their communication efforts have served a wide range of objectives, from ensuring the best possible participation in the Calls for partners to generating awareness and insight among influential public and private policy makers. They are well supported by the participants, who represent the Clean Sky Programme at subject related national and international conferences, in Europe and abroad, with each year increasingly results oriented contributions. Clean Sky has a strong presence at the European Commission s Aerodays event (2011 in Madrid, 2015 in London) including a demonstration stands. The Clean Sky 1 NSRG was instrumental in opening interfaces between Clean Sky and upcoming relevant events in their constituencies and stimulated the communication effort in the Call for Partners process (see 6.6). The Clean Sky 1 STAB inspired Clean Sky participation in a set of 4 student oriented conferences in 2012 (Amsterdam, Bristol, Paris and Berlin) with audiences of up to 150 students and Clean Sky has maintained links with student organisations as a result. The first Clean Sky conference, including an exhibition of the research activities, was organised as early as June 2010 and drew 300 aeronautical research community participants. In additional to the personal networking with Commission and Parliamentary representatives, Clean Sky participates with the other JTIs in the Innovation in Action platform (October 2011, October 2013, December 2015), a week long exhibit and conference event held at the European parliament highlighting the socio-economic impact of the JTI programmes. From the fall of 2012 Clean Sky outreach began to include the formations aspects of the follow on Clean Sky 2 programme. An SME focus was deployed in 2013, with a view to Clean Sky 2 promotion, in the form of an SME Day in Brussels and intensified grassroots efforts including an SME survey undertaken in 2015 to prepare for CS2 calls. CS2 was a central theme in the Clean Sky General Forum in November 2013 and in all events thereafter. The 2016 participation to external (and internal) events and delivery of presentations on Clean Sky was (from the 2016 AAR). EASN Breakfast at EP and DG-RTD (16 February) CS General Forum, with Award to Best GAP projects (4 April) EASA OPTICS conference in Cologne (12-14 April) FEAMA Conference in Cologne (18 May) 65

66 Clean Sky 2 Interim Evaluation Report 30 June 2017 ILA Airshow, best PhD Award, SunJet workshop, Berlin (1-2 June) GeT FuTuRe workshop, Pisa, (15-16 June) A320 Flight Test e-ftd, Toulouse (23 June) Farnborough Air Show (11-15 July) RAeS Aerodynamic Conference, Bristol (21-22 July) EASA Additive Manufacturing workshop, Cologne (28-29 September) Greener Aviation Conference, Brussels (11-13 October) EASN Workshop, Porto (18-21 October) The Clean Sky website is a key instrument in communication and its role has expanded from serving basic needs, such as call management and event announcements, to an interactive format for presenting the programmes research objectives and achievements, as well as participation oriented material. This was a major step forward in the transparency of the Clean Sky programme. Following a major overhaul in April 2011 a continuous updating was maintained. In 2015 a similar overhaul of the Clean Sky social media presence was also undertaken and the now available Clean Sky video content is impressive. A shortcoming was noted in the accessibility of Clean Sky direct achievements, such as technical papers and other public deliverables and patents, both on the Clean Sky website and on the EC CORDIS information system where keyword management was not well implemented for Clean Sky. The Clean Sky website made a significant improvement in the spring of 2017 for the CS1 products and will follow on in this manner for CS1 (Figure 23). Figure 23 Web-based software tool to be implemented at the CS website on dissemination of technical output A broader audience is reached through monthly E-News mailshots and press releases which often leads to interviews with JU representatives such as the ED and the GB Chairman. U.S based Aviation Week features Clean Sky regularly. A quarterly bulletin Skyline was launched in September Dissemination lists for these media are mined from all Clean Sky contacts and participation data from relevant events. A Clean Sky visual identity and promotional material, which would also flow down the visibility of the essential EU contribution, e.g. by its EU logo on websites, newsletters, etc. took very much longer to realise. In a quick look it was found that many (but not all) Clean Sky products, such as technical papers, carry the rubric has received funding from the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/ ) for the Clean Sky Joint Technology Initiative under grant agreement. In outreach to the interested public, Clean Sky has established a pattern of participation in the annual International Airshows with a chalet (and from 2013 a demonstration stand) at Le Bourget (Figure 24) with a week long programme of events profiling the Clean Sky programme and a stand in the Innovation Zone at Farnborough which from 2014 also included demonstrator mock-ups. The challenge of reaching the less interested public has long been recognised but opportunities for 66

67 Clean Sky may lie in showcasing the programmes contribution to improvement of connectivity, reduction of airport noise and job creation in the aeronautical sector. Figure 24 Clean Sky JU and the Commission together at the Paris Airshow in Le Bourget, June Operational efficiency The Clean Sky 2 JU is run by the same Programme Office as was Clean Sky 1 and both programs are presently handled by the same staff. A significant expansion for the addition of CS2 responsibilities was made in 2014, from 24 to 42 staff and the planned level was achieved with an average recruitment time of 4 months. The monitoring of operational performance began only in 2011 but in 2014 the KPIs were redefined under H2020 which limits the comparative assessment. The H2020 KPIs were rather complex to address here but the parameters shown below were largely maintained aside from some minor issues with adapting to H2020 IT for the partner grant agreements. In any case, the performance of the members (Table 9) in terms of resource allocation to the program (95% average after ramping up ) and timely delivery of research results (around 77%) seem reasonable even though the ambitious target for the deliverables was 90%. GAPs finalised in 6 months (8 months from 2014) % 50% 43% member resource utilisation 86% 84% 96% 100% 90% member deliverable performance 76% 78% 70% 82% 73% payments within deadline 84% 88% 73% Table 9 KPI representing operational efficiency The initial target for the lead time from launching a call to concluding a GAP was raised from 6 months to 8 months, which was more realistic considering the process steps. However, including the lead time to prepare a topic description and have it approved, it could take a year from when a need for support was identified to the start of the work. Finally, the excellent achievement of the integration of SMEs into the Clean Sky programme (Table 10): SME Share of total funding 37% 36% 38% 35% 35% SME participation vs total 42% 37% 36% 35% 36% SME CfP participation 40% 43% 43% 42% 41% 24% Table 10 SME participation in CS 67

68 Clean Sky 2 Interim Evaluation Report 30 June 2017 There are certainly other, more relevant KPIs that could be used to monitor the impact of the Clean Sky Programme. For example, the SciCom, in reflection of its interest in promoting better education, is considering what related metric could work. The Clean Sky Programme Office makes every effort to stay lean by combining functions. The accommodation of the five new JUs in the White Atrium building, since 2011, allowed a very efficient sharing of IT services, meeting rooms and entrance security. While sharing the IT tools established in the Commission services was always the first recourse, a Grant Management Tool (for the unique task of GAM administration) was accomplished in 2012 and was updated in A common document management system (the shared drive ) was established in 2012 and seems effective (although it is one that depends on personnel discipline for success). Common HR tools (recruitment and timekeeping) were implemented across the JUs in The running costs of the CSJU were around 2.5% of the total annual budget of the JU over the course of CS1 and are about 1.5% with the two programmes in parallel. The Annual Activity Report is a very well researched and presented overview of the programme activities for the year, together with comprehensive data on all aspects of the programme operations. Our sincere compliments. There was very little freedom of action, under the implementation as a Union Body for the JU to reduce or simplify the administrative burden on the Clean Sky participants. Web based tools for carrying out most processes as well as a sympathetic and responsive Programme Office staff were the best that could be offered. The latter aspect was highly regarded by the beneficiary survey respondents. The JU strives to provide excellent programme management and high quality service (agree, strongly agree) The JU's employees are committed to doing quality work and provide a prompt service (agree, strongly agree) Employees in the JU are knowledgeable and competent (agree, strongly agree) Employees in the JU are consistently courteous and always willing to help (agree, strongly agree) Employees in the JU are cooperative and give personal attention (agree, strongly agree) When you have a problem the JU shows a sincere interest in solving it (agree,strongly agree) Overall, how satisfied are you with the JU s services (satisfied, very satisfied) Table 11 Survey results on programme management 83% 89% 91% 92% 89% 86% 93% The Clean Sky programme office has a broad portfolio of operational tasks, related to the administration of the programme participation and the monitoring of research progress, combined with ad hoc responsibilities such as preparing the Clean Sky 2 programme. The rigorous review schedule, the high frequency of meetings inherent in the governance structure, and the geographical reach of the programme participation places a high travel burden and demands almost 24/7 reachability for the staff members, who fortunately all think they have the best job in the world. Overall, the Clean Sky Programme Office performs remarkably well and efficiently (Table 11). 7.3 EU Added Value The European Union is the only place on the planet that could have realised Clean Sky and the JTI approach is the only way that the critical mass for the success of the Clean Sky research agenda could have been obtained. It is the view of the European Parliament that uncoordinated spending at national level cannot reach common objectives [35] such as those that motivate the Clean Sky research programme: the societal benefit of greening aviation and increasing industrial competitiveness. 68

69 Aircraft manufacturers, airframers and their major system suppliers operate as integrators with geographically dispersed supply chains (as much as three layers deep and counting) that provide their part of the aircraft or system (engine etc.). And just as aeronautics product development and production is globally distributed, the aeronautics research community in Europe is accustomed to nearly always collaborating across national borders and even continents. An individual member state could support its own Industry in its research objectives but a part of that investment would have to flow to another country. Or an alliance with the other involved members states would have to be formed to share the research program funding. The European Commission has clearly been trusted by the member states for many years with forming those alliances - through its framework collaborative research programs - and so too for Clean Sky. "As the complexity of research and the capital investments required increases, no Member State acting in isolation can create the minimal, critical mass." [35] The long established practice of European collaboration in aeronautical research has resulted in the development of poles of excellence in essential technological domains such as the Hamburg Aviation Cluster (Germany). Aerospace Valley (France) holds the Gold Label of the European Cluster Excellence Initiative (ECEI), the Madrid Aerospace Cluster has Silver Label status ( Spain has an exceptional presence among the Clean Sky partners being the first ranked in terms of winning participations through Clean Sky calls and the third ranked in terms of funding. The Accession countries are also represented, modestly but the beginning of lowering a barrier. Although in absolute values the members countries with the highest economic activity in aerospace have the highest participation in the Clean Sky 2 programme there is proportionally more European funding going to countries other than France, Germany and the UK. It is expected that these investments will lead to a future increase in the aeronautics supply chain participation of these countries. This analysis is based on production values taken from the FWC Sector Competitiveness Studies - Competitiveness of the EU Aerospace Industry with focus on: Aeronautics Industry 2009 [16]. Although these figures are somewhat dated (CS1 was running and preparations were being made for CS2), they should still be representative for the conservative aeronautics sector. The countries whose share in CS funding most clearly exceed their contribution in EU27 production value are Spain, Italy and the Netherlands. This is reflection of their legacies in the aeronautics industry, with past and present niche market products and of their concerted efforts to remain engaged in the evolving aeronautical research supply chain. Their ambitions are applauded and, in Clean Sky rewarded. 69

70 Clean Sky 2 Interim Evaluation Report 30 June 2017 Figure 25 Share in CS1 funding (red bars) related to the production value in the EU (27 member states of the EU). Figure 26 Share in CS2 funding (analysis limited to the requested/validated contributions so far) (red bars) related to the production value in the EU (27 member states of the EU). The JTI approach has been able to focus the aeronautical research community on the goal of mitigating the environment impact of aviation, a mission that would not have been undertaken based only on market incentives, on a much larger scale than would otherwise be realised. The member collaborations and the open calls were both based on the best available expertise and joined recognised leaders in the field in collaboration. The close coordination of the technical work and of the responsible contributors, through the programme hierarchy and the efforts of the JU 70

71 Programme Office, has realised an economy of scale that discrete projects would not have achieved. Duplication of effort has been minimised and knowledge sharing has been optimised to ensure that the research baseline is the state of the art. Beyond the strictly economic interpretation of the European added value, the European Parliament has noted that "the concept of European added value must not be limited to advanced cooperation between Members States but should also contain a visionary' aspect". [3] There is no doubt that that Clean Sky research agenda, which targeted to double the rate of progress in fuel consumption reduction and half the time to market for the resulting technologies, is ambitious. In addition, the private members have oriented substantial parts of their own research agenda towards Clean Sky objectives and remained fully committed to the initial demonstrator targets, such as BLADE and CROR, in spite of delays and unforeseen related costs. The CS2 regulation sets out that the total private contribution shall be at least billion versus up to billion as EU funding, which leads to a leverage of 1:1.26. At the end of 2016, the second year of CS2 operation, an IKAA value of 199,156, has been certified by the members auditors and validated by JU management (there is no Union audit of IKAA). The additional activities reported were: Preparation of test aircrafts/platforms including infrastructure for flight testing; Development and testing of advanced component technologies, modeling, control systems and materials systems for the engine demonstrator programme; Development of accompanying manufacturing methods and techniques, e.g. for laminar wings; Development of supporting technologies, e.g. research and technology development of architectures, technology bricks and other enablers for systems and airframe; Aircraft architecture design process; New manufacturing and assembly techniques; Composite manufacturing processes; Activities concerning the innovative passenger cabin ; Configuration optimisation tools; Development of various technologies/materials lowering operating and life cycle cost; Counter-Rotating Open Rotor related complementary activities; Landing Gears complementary activities; Preparation of simulated environment for integration of early developments. Although the ability of the CS to establish new networks in aeronautical research in Europe is widely acknowledged, it is not predictable how that will translate into real economic impact. A better insight into the exploitation effectiveness of the Clean Sky programme is needed on behalf of the continuing political support for such a large scale research programme. 7.4 Coherence The aspect of the coherence of the Clean Sky initiative has to be examined from a number of different perspectives. It is clear that the internal coherence in the Clean Sky programme itself is very high and that, in spite of the complexity of the programme interfaces, the participants have a common vision which the lower level IAPD/ITD objectives serve. Clearly there may be participants who seek to fulfil their own research needs rather than a greening agenda but watchfulness lies within the role of the CSJU and the GB commitment is thus far unwavering. The focal point for developing a coherent and internally consistent long-term vision for aeronautics research is the Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research and Innovation in Europe (ACARE). Through the participation of the CSJU staff and members/partners in the diverse expert groups of ACARE, a Clean Sky contribution is directly or indirectly ensured. The very grassroots nature of the ACARE organisation does not seem to support a structural relationship with the CSJU but the evaluators did received a very positive position paper from ACARE. 71

72 Clean Sky 2 Interim Evaluation Report 30 June 2017 The coherence between Clean Sky research and the framework collaborative research workplan does not seem to be a structural point of attention. The overall FP7 budget for aeronautical research was fairly balanced (collaborative research 50%, CS1 41%) and the work programme for collaborative research clearly had topics that were closely related to the Clean Sky scope of work. In particular The Greening of Air Transport (topic 7.1.1) is potentially a very synergic research topic and this is reflected as an objective of complementarity and synergy with Clean Sky in the 2010 Work Programme forward. However very few of the FP7 project summaries reference Clean Sky: (as search term) only Actuation 2015 SGO; DESIREH SFWA; REACT4C SGO and SESAR; NOISERED and OPENAIR were identified). It is also noted by an FP7 L2 proposal evaluator that the Clean Sky complementarity and synergy was not generally briefed to the reviewers. It was not feasible to review L1 projects for complementarity and synergy but the FP7 L2 calls noted below are certainly related and that is not consistently reflected in the call text WP, 7.1.1: Innovative Engine Architecture 2008 WP: Aircraft External Noise, Airframe and Engine Health Monitoring (extension of TATEM) 2011 WP Core Engine Thermal Efficiency, Actuation and Morphing Structures for Small Aircraft 2013 WP: LP System for UHBR Engine, Active Flow Control and Thermal Analysis and Design On the other hand, as previously noted, the L2 calls were usually prepared by DG-RTD, in consultation with the IMG-4, on behalf of a pre-defined consortium a process which we may hope would implicitly address the Clean Sky relationship. While Clean Sky did provide their draft Calls for Proposals to the Commission for informal review prior to publication, the reverse was not the case. In any case, with very few exceptions for large call topics, the very specific topics and small budgets of Clean Sky calls did not merit screening by the Commission for overlap with FP7 Collaborative Research. It is unfortunately not relevant to make observations on the synergy of the H2020 collaborative research programme with Clean Sky 2 because, as previously noted, there is very little H2020 budget for aeronautics research. It is recognised that such bottom up proposals in response to a very broad call topic description fill the innovation pipeline with ideas that, if shown to be feasible in L1 research, may be developed to a higher TRL in Clean Sky. For their part, Clean Sky has the duty to continually monitor collaborative research activity, to ensure that Clean Sky is always at the leading edge of State of the Art (at TRL 3 or so) and cherry pick innovations shown to merit further development. It must be pointed out too, that the Clean Sky research agenda is focused on greening technologies and is not comprehensive in the way that past framework programmes have been. The important platforms of Clean Sky are technology centred (airframes, engines, systems) and their demonstrator objectives are served by a narrow scope of research activities. For the term of H2020 there are gaps in the European aeronautics research landscape, such as; electric or hybrid propulsion; resilience, cyber-security or new software development methodologies; unmanned airborne vehicles and supersonic aircraft. There may be spill over from the work of other agencies (SESAR, Alternative Fuel, ICT and Secure Society) with potential application in aviation. It is important to keep postgraduate students in a position to remain alert to these opportunities and provide the means to support the concept studies and feasibility work on their innovations. It is not surprising that, without a reasonable collaborative research budget in H2020, CS2 is by some regarded as a research cartel. This characterisation has positive features, such as critical mass, defragmentation and relevance. The IPR provisions in the grant agreements appear to respect Union regulations such the Commission regulation on technology transfer agreements [36], which establishes conditions for the size of collaborating entities engaged in related (commercial) activities. 72

73 With a view towards future research funding programmes, an optimum balance between concentration of public and private resources in a focused research programme and sufficient support for the indispensable free competition of ideas and ambitions must be sought. Maintaining coherence with the SESAR research programme has not been straightforward. FP7 laid the foundation for Clean Sky as In the field of Aeronautics and Air Transport, different areas would be addressed, such as environmentally friendly and cost efficient air transport system (The Green Air Transport System), and air traffic management in support of the Single European Sky policy and SESAR initiative [7]).The Clean Sky JTI proposal [37] submitted in March 2007 reflected this in stating Coordination will be made to ensure compatibility and coherence with SESAR: SESAR will propose scenarios and roadmaps for the efficient evolution of the ATM in Europe. It will address solutions, including procedures, to optimise ATM system capacity, as well as flight efficiency and associated reduction in environmental impact, in a multi-aircraft context. Clean Sky will optimise on-board systems for environmental impact at the aircraft level only, taking into account SESAR outcomes in term of procedures and trajectories. Clean Sky seeks to develop environmentally optimised trajectories for each type of aircraft, subject to ATM constraints and has shown positive environmental impact of its Mission and Trajectory efforts. This matched with the SESAR remit to integrate and coordinate research and development activities which were previously undertaken in a dispersed and uncoordinated manner in the Community [38] in relation to Air Traffic Management (ATM) research. Due to the nature of nowadays technical developments, the former simple separation between ground based and airborne systems research does not apply anymore. SESAR is therefore also defining on-board systems for developing leading edge ATM solutions within the multi-aircraft context., creating an area of overlap in trajectory management. On the other hand, Clean Sky is addressing related systems in the one aircraft context that touch ATM functions. The second interim [17] evaluation mentioned that the initial link with SESAR was not optimal. Delays on information from SESAR to CS have been identified and have affected progress for example from SESAR to SGO MTM. This problem has been improved in 2012 and common reviews between programmes have been performed. Finally, a structural relationship was established to identify gaps and secure synergies in their common area of research through a Memorandum of Cooperation [39]. This is now reflected in the current SESAR Single Programming Document [40] and both JUs are now in the process of developing strategies (which we sincerely hope engages expert liaison rather than management) to improve the coordination. As previously mentioned, the coordination of national research programs through the SRG has not yielded visible and explicit results although anecdotally such alignment is reported through an NSRG role in flowing down the Clean Sky activity. While in principle this leaves room for further optimisation the fact that some national programs might intend to strengthen the national industry in competition with other nations could be a barrier. As Clean Sky has not been granted the monopoly that SESAR has in ATM research a persuasive approach to coordination with national research programs is the only recourse. A recent change in the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) policy has created the opportunity for their experts to participate in research projects, with a view to evolving the certification base in parallel with research into new configurations and systems. This very important input to Clean Sky research projects was formalised in a Memorandum of Cooperation with EASA in November The CS2 Establishment Regulation [1] directive to develop close interactions with European Structural Investment Funds (ESIF), and to underpin smart specialisation efforts in the field of activities covered by the CSJU, has been pursued with exceptional success. Relationships have been established with 13 regions thus far and 8 pilot projects are underway. An approach to including complementary activities in proposals for CSJU Calls, in synergy with the Clean Sky 2 Programme and its technology roadmap, is being implemented and guidance material has been developed. 73

74 Clean Sky 2 Interim Evaluation Report 30 June 2017 The CSJU has generally been quite proactive in taking up opportunities for collaboration with other agencies, intitiatives and actions with the potential for synergy with the Clean Sky research agenda. 7.5 Relevance The strongest evidence of the relevance of the Clean Sky research agenda is of course the support found for the transition to Clean Sky 2. Its renewed work plan has several underlying drivers. First, Clean Sky was, as it is a JTI, not allowed by the Council Decision on FP7 [7] to cover the whole spectrum of air transport greening and aeronautical industry competitiveness research. Clean Sky 2 now includes additional air transport markets, such as commuter operations (19 seater) and the civil protection helicopter configuration. More importantly, Clean Sky 2 is addressing gaps that emerged in Clean Sky, whether as a result of a technology need that could not be fulfilled in the initial program or to further develop innovations that emerged in it. The Ultra High Bypass Ratio engine for large passenger aircraft, for example, moves engine core developments in SAGE 3 closer to the Rolls Royce Ultrafan concept for service in And lastly, Clean Sky 2 extends the schedule for the major Clean Sky demonstrators such as the Open Rotor (CROR) and Advanced Laminar Flow (BLADE) on Airbus flying testbeds. Both of these experienced cost and schedule challenges as a result of Clean Sky start up delays and unforeseen elements in their scope of work. Political developments underwrite the continuing relevance of reducing the environmental impact of air transport. The adoption in 2015 of the historic Paris Agreement and its ratification in November 2016 underscores the global intention to resist climate change. The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) agreement in February 2016 on a CO2 standard for new aircraft, followed by their accord on global market-based measure to control CO2 emissions from international aviation in October, highlight an emerging regulatory framework. These steps towards including the societal costs of greenhouse gas emissions in the Air Transport business model underscore the need to do everything possible to accelerate the development and introduction of environmentally friendly products and services. It underlines the objectives and goals already set out in 2000 by the European Commission and stakeholders, in the Vision 2020 of the Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research in Europe (ACARE), and the subsequent establishment in 2008 of Clean Sky, the first ever European public-private partnership (PPP) in aeronautics [10]. In terms of industry competitiveness, the Clean Sky objective To accelerate the development of Air Transport technologies to realise the earliest possible deployment of contributions to Europe s strategic environmental and social priorities [41] will be realised through putting industry in a position to skip a generation of evolutionary development, which achieves about 15% fuel burn improvement in a 20 year product cycle, and make the Clean Sky concepts, with which 30% or 40% improvement can be achieved, the new normal in the operating fleet. The radical, disruptive technology lines that the Clean Sky programme has pursued are the foundations for such aircraft industry product steps and the biggest challenge is to ready them for the next plus 1 (at best!) aircraft fleet renewal cycle. It is fortunate that the economic incentive of lower fuel costs, achieved through weight reduction, improved engine performance, improved aerodynamic efficiency etc., is coincident with the environmental objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The policy and rationale that underlay the Clean Sky programme in 2007 is still in line with the current challenges in the Air Transport sector and the portfolio of tasks entrusted to the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking, and the effective execution of them in Clean Sky 1, continues to underwrite the PPP approach. 74

75 8. CONCLUSIONS Clean Sky 2 was not quite a continuation of Clean Sky 1 but rather a restart based on replacing FP7 policies by Horizon 2020 ones. Although that has had significant impact on the JU, the Clean Sky 2 research programme has made a smooth start on its mission to develop breakthrough concepts, at every level of the aeronautics industry value chain, to contribute to the ambitious environment impact mitigation goals of the ACARE Flightpath 2050 European Air Transport policy reference. The continuity of the CSJU from its FP7 origin, combined with gatekeeping measures such as the Launch reviews, have ensured a disciplined and coordinated transition to the Clean Sky 2 research agenda. The work to finalise Clean Sky 1 is proceeding as planned and its best achievements are transitioned and further developed in Clean Sky 2. A significant contribution, has, and is expected to be made to the portfolio of validated technologies with which the aeronautics industry supply chain can realise accelerated market introduction of green products. Since the principal means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions is to lower fuel consumption, through weight and drag reduction and propulsion efficiency improvements, the relative competitiveness of these products is closely related to oil price. This brings some uncertainty to the actual service introduction timing and strategy as a new engine, system and aircraft development is a very large investment. The collaboration established with EASA will be instrumental in ensuring that airworthiness considerations are addressed in an early stage of design and it will be important to ground this contribution in the individual Clean Sky 2 research pillars. Notwithstanding the economic incentive for the introduction of green technologies, it would seem evident that regulatory incentives will also be essential. It will be a great challenge for Europe to play a leading role in internalising the societal costs of greenhouse gas emissions in the Air Transport business model while continuing to ensure a level playing field for European products in the global market. While steps in this directions have been made, in context of the Paris accord and in ICAO, a certain climate change weariness (or wariness) may impact the pace of this. The expectation of great accomplishments should not overshadow the many smaller achievements that are being made in both product technology and research capability. It is also important to ensure that every activity has a 'business case' basis so that technologies are not being developed that do not serve the "earliest possible deployment" which is a key priority in the establishment regulations. Just as an 'exploitation plan' for each consortium member is a traditional part of a collaborative research project proposal, the Clean Sky imperium is encouraged to increase the visibility of its individual exploitation objectives and to implement monitoring of it. This is already a best practice of some National research programmes (e.g. LUFO, ATI) and the implementation timeline is not as important a factor as the impact. As well, the structured implementation of exploitation tracking will provide the CSJU with many more success stories to celebrate. The Clean Sky programme should be more creative in presenting their achievements than only reporting on the accomplishment of demonstrator milestones. Indicators such as the frequency with which demonstrator needs were met starting from scratch with innovative solutions and conversely, the percentage of technologies that were progressed in TRL without eventually contributing to the top level solution, are the real indicators of the effectiveness of the research investment. Even more insight in the progress towards viable products might be gained from the analysis of the rate of progression in system readiness level (SRL) or manufacturing readiness level (MRL) within the Clean Sky programme. Reporting on milestone accomplishments alone is not proving to be adequate expression of the real performance of the Clean Sky research investment. There is a different flavour in the implementation of the Clean Sky JU in Horizon 2020 compared to that in the Seventh Framework Programme. The creation of a technically and managerially competent unit to represent the public interest in the execution of a well defined research agenda was shown during CS1 to be an effective approach to running an efficient program. Admittedly there was a huge learning curve but the challenges were professionally and enthusiastically overcome. So it 75

76 Clean Sky 2 Interim Evaluation Report 30 June 2017 is absolutely not clear to us why there has been a change in governance to re-insert the Commission in the details of the research programme, and a delegation agreement that imposes all H2020 ground rules, procedures and methods on the CSJU, in the H2020 implementation. From the perspective of the private members it may negate the trust based relationship that was to be the foundation of the Horizon 2020 research funding framework. It also suggests that the JU is not a trustworthy gatekeeper of the public interest in spite of much evidence to the contrary. It has certainly created a second, largely unnecessary, learning curve in the transition from Clean Sky 1 to Clean Sky 2. There is no doubt that the CSJU has a duty to fulfil all of the Commission policy objectives that apply to the execution of the programme. However the means of accomplishing that should be tailored to the needs of the unique nature of the programme. The CSJU should have the leeway to choose the best approach to fulfilling its duty, using Commission methods and processes where appropriate or substituting tailor made solutions where that is more practical and efficient. That will be necessarily constrained by the already established H2020 framework for JU operations but for future JU implementations careful reflection on the H2020 experience should guide the definition of its framework, rules and derogations well in advance A clean sheet of paper would seem to be a very good starting point for defining exactly what is needed (or not needed) to meet the needs of both the public and private members of the CSJU. The Clean Sky JU Programme Office is a small management team running a very large research factory. The failure to provide for a smooth transition from the visionary, charismatic and highly effective Executive Director that launched the Clean Sky movement is a risk to the momentum of the programme. It is not clear why his or her recruitment has taken so long as JU staff is generally attached within 4 months or so. While there are merits to either candidates from industry or from the Commission, it may be prudent to consider candidates from within the CSJU in view of the learning curve associated with the complexities of balancing the public and private interests in this very large programme. The overall implementation of the Clean Sky JUs have been very transparent and the Annual Activities report is well produced document that provides full disclosure of all aspects of the programme. There are some shortcomings, such as the publication of call results and the accessibility of dissemination material and public deliverables on the Clean Sky website. The maintenance of the Clean Sky website is a very important contribution to the transparency and, more important, the visibility of the Clean Sky programme. Great steps have been made but more need to follow. The CSJU is very efficient in the execution of the broad scope of its duties and is currently running at about 1.5% of the overall program budget which is far below the performance of the executive agencies. This is in spite of the fact that the volume of calls in Clean Sky is relatively higher (and the average value substantially lower) than those the executive agencies manage. The technical qualifications and personal commitment of both the operational and administrative staff are a key contributors to this achievement. While it is elegantly simple to structure the top level of the program to the industrial focus of each of the members it is not clear that this is an effective architecture. The need for a top level matrix is already an indicator of the enormously interfaced activities at the lower levels of the programme and with each stovepipe implemented in the respective Leader s project management system it is difficult to monitor whether the interfacing needs are adequately meet. Clearly a failed interface is a missed opportunity for a part of the programme to adopt a newly minted solution in another part, or to remain cognisant of evolutions in the state of the art for their overlapping fields of activity. Organisation designs, like system designs, are optimised when the number of interfaces are minimised. Another clean sheet of paper for the next generation of Clean Sky to fill creatively. The distributed project management of the Clean Sky programme is also a challenge to the monitoring capacity of the CSJU. While financial reporting is comprehensive through the self-made 76

77 Grant Agreement Management (GAM) tool, other aspects, such as TRL progression, task relationships, milestone and deliverable accomplishments and knowledge assets produced cannot be monitored at an appropriate level for effective use by the CSJU. A good insight at Level 2 of the Clean Sky Work breakdown structure would ( rule of thumb ) be the right level for integrated monitoring of who/what/when/how much by the CSJU. Suitable almost off the shelf IT solutions are out there and the implementation time would be about 6 months unless a broader vision intervenes in meeting the precise needs of the CSJU. Achieving a whole which is greater than the sum of the parts" is based on making the relationships visible. The LPA IADP implemented as a systems engineering / ERP derivative system to include all LPA members plus relationships to partners and this was mentioned as a good example to be followed. Both the FP7 and H2020 framework programs are based on the philosophy that collaborative research is the core of European programmes. The JTI are considered as highly important complementary policy instruments to tackle only one or a small group of very specific aspects in their respective research area. While the large share of the H2020 aeronautics budget allocated to CS2 has served the objective of providing stability of research funding to its participants over the duration of the programme, other research interests barely exist in H2020. The Clean Sky calls are currently almost the only opportunity for aeronautics research funding. This results in a focus of high TRL demonstrator work and neglects the low TRL work that keeps the innovation pipeline filled. There are however several of the subjects mention above as gaps in the Clean Sky programme, such as hybrid propulsion concepts in LPA WP 1.6, that could be launched to bridge that funding gap. A more open call than the procurement style of topic descriptions for demonstrator work would likely yield quality input to this conceptual work. The remit of the evaluation panel includes an invitation to address the key elements explaining success and attributes the future accomplishments of the Clean Sky 2 programme to the commitment and dedication of the participants, in the JU Programme Office, in the Commission and among the private participants and the aeronautics research related external stakeholder groups. It is a programme that runs on the basis of the collective will to make it work and any criticism we encountered in our work was combined with a thoughtful and constructive solution suggestion. We urge all of the stakeholders to keep in mind the need to continually nurture this spirit of cooperation to allow the Clean Sky 2 programme to achieve the same level of success as its predecessor did. 77

78 Clean Sky 2 Interim Evaluation Report 30 June RECOMMENDATIONS: This report has made a very broad survey of the Clean Sky 2 operation and its environment and there are many observations in the text of this report that we could have transformed into a prescriptive recommendations. Instead we have chosen to provide our view of the top ten attention points, both for the ongoing Clean Sky 2 programme and to take into account in the design and implementation of future large scale aeronautics research projects. We apologize that we are short on solutions but will depend on the combined talents of all of the Clean Sky stakeholders to take the right steps for the short and long term continuity of this inspired programme. 9.1 The Delegation Agreement It is clearly not in the best interests of the CSJU to implement the Delegation Agreement that was made with the Commission under its Establishing Regulation just for the sake of it. The Commission should motivate each point, with reference to their specific needs and the available support for these transitions. The management of the grant agreements for members and research product archive system are two areas that we could consider inappropriate to migrate but the CSJU is the best judge of what will best meet their needs and responsibilities. The framework, rules and suitable derogations should be considered well in advance of the drafting of an Establishment Regulation for future programmes. 9.2 Administrative Simplification Other options for meeting fiscal responsibility requirements in grant administration, at reduced administrative workload, for future large scale projects should be explored. The governance structure and the dedicated Programme Office of the JU are unique JTI feature that should permit a higher level of trust based operation than would apply to grant management by an executive agency. 9.3 The H2020 Aeronautics Innovation Pipeline The CSJU should make a best effort to convert appropriate parts of the Clean Sky 2 research agenda into call topics that are much less prescriptive than their current practice and to allocate funds (where feasible without impacting their demonstrator objectives) to create opportunities for research in areas that Clean Sky does not currently address (the gaps ). 9.4 Stimulate Subcontracting It seems obvious now that the call topics in high TRL development work are small, short duration and closely specified work packages that are less than a few million Euros in value. They are probably not worth the effort of the call for proposal and grant management process. There are adequate mechanisms in place for transparency of subcontracting and increased use of that approach to outsourcing seems preferable. A substantial increase of efficiency should be realised. 9.5 An Holistic Approach for Aeronautics Research The maturity of collaborative, cross border research in the aeronautics research community and the close supply chain integration of the participating entities would suggest that a more integrative programmatic approach to managing this research area would be very effective. An additional responsibility of the CSJU for a collaborative research work programme would optimise complementarity and synergy with the demonstrator projects while nurturing the bottom-up inspired innovation pipeline. 9.6 Increased Transparency 78

79 The insight into the recipients of public funding is for Clean Sky opaque at best. It can be found but not easily. This may be a protective response to the early allegations of industry playground but the accomplishments of Clean Sky 1 and the objectives of Clean Sky 2 merit substantial respect. The best place for disclosure of the parties and their funding is right next to the accomplishments of each element of the research programme as these are achievements (or goals) to be proud of. The dedicated followers of the Clean Sky electronic newsletter would love to be the first to know about new grant awards. 9.7 Increase Insight The relationships between the research activity and the demonstrator objectives in the broad Clean Sky framework are not always clear and this will not be solved by putting more detail in the work breakdown based descriptions or the progress reports. Alternative views of the research are needed to create visibility in the intended application of each technology development, to ensure that the baseline is indeed state of the art and to prevent research from being duplicated. Alternative views of the accomplishments are needed for an overview of the technology maturity that was realised in the programme, the application (or not) of the research outcomes in the realisation of the demonstrators and the contribution of the research to a marketable product. These measurements of the ability of the partners to both choose targets and accomplish them are much stronger performance indicators than milestones and deliverables currently being monitored. 9.8 Synergy with National Research The statutory SRG is not actively contributing to Clean Sky coordination with aeronautics research funded by the member states. Although synergy is being created by the wake effect of Clean Sky s visibility, and the Clean Sky insights that the SRG members acquire, the Commission needs to stimulate the SRG to contribute to maximising the leverage effect of research program synchronisation. 9.9 Promote Economic Impact At the end of the day the Clean Sky programmes will be judged on the basis of real world impact and, although that will sometimes take decades to materialise in a new, green air transport fleet, there are still methods by which the predicted benefits of the Clean Sky programmes can be made more substantial. Improved monitoring of industrial uptake, both intended and actual, combined with the elaboration of the scope of the technology evaluator to include socio economic impact will serve the Clean Sky programme well in obtaining support for its continuation Energize and Enable Academic Participation Academic participation in demonstrator work tends to focus on established aeronautic research partners that have the facilities and experience to support high TRL development work. Herein lies opportunity to expand the aeronautics research support base for Clean Sky. The main avenues to exploit could be: Enable students to contribute in an industrial environment, particularly in SMEs which would not otherwise have that luxury, as a subject for PhD research. The Initial Training Network" approach of the Marie Curie instrument is a good basis from which to develop a unique Clean Sky approach. Engage universities to explore the unexplained outcomes of Clear Sky research that the ITD/IAPDs do not prioritise in their own scope of work. Import new knowledge, solutions and innovation potential by finding ideas in other sciences and sectors. Reward excellent academic performance in the area of transition from fundamental to applied research thru grants, awards, prizes that energize and enable the academic community. 79

80 Clean Sky 2 Interim Evaluation Report 30 June

81 10. ANNEXES 10.1 Considerations on state aid for private companies and the 5% dilemma H. Pfeiffer In time of crisis or in order to stimulate new technologies, it is practice that public entities provide support for R&D activities as a policy instrument to improve the competitive situation of innovationdriven industries. Such state support for private companies, while respecting respective regulations, is usually given by a preferential tax regime (indirect) or by grants (direct) and occurs at local, national or transnational level. In fact, if R&D funding is seen as a valid policy instrument to support companies hit hard by a crisis and facing financial restrictions, it is inevitable that public resources should not be re-directed away from risky and promising research projects toward companies that would likely perform equally well without this funding. [33] One should generally keep in mind that innovation is probably the most risky investment and in average only 5% of all technical projects intending market introduction will ever be successful. This (barely known fact) is proven by many studies performed over the last years, valid in different sectors, and we hope that policy makers on all levels are also aware of it when assessing the performance of related funding instruments. One should even assume that in aeronautics, that percentage is even more modest keeping in mind the conservative attitude concerning new technologies and the excessive lead times. The demonstrator approach of Clean Sky appears to mitigate the risk of innovation, and the probability of success might rise beyond the magical 5% just, just because higher TRL technologies are integrated and examined that have already survived lower TRL gates. This however requires that the technologies to implement are already there and financing higher TRL levels is not on cost of the lower TRL in the innovation pipelines to enable durable innovation cycles. From a standpoint of the market economy and free competition, private companies should for sure finance their major R&D activities in essence via their revenues. If subsidies would just replace private investments, one would this call a crowding-out effect that in essence needs to be avoided as this would establish a state economy within a private company. According to a recent French study, crowding-out effects are more likely to occur for small and medium sized companies, In addition, we find evidence of more extensive negative effects for firms employing fewer than 100 employees or operating in low R&D intensive industries. [33], which not excludes that a big group of SME uses subsidies quite efficiently. The optimal situation exists when such type of subsidy will create additional (additionality), durable investments in R&D within that companies. This additionality can be numerically measured as an elasticity relating the increase in private R&D spending to a change of the amount of subsidy provided. A large scale study recently reported however the somewhat pessimistic finding [42]: suggest that the use of subsidy as part of science and technology policy does contribute to addressing market failures by increasing both R&D inputs and R&D outputs in subsidised firms in comparison to the no subsidy counterfactual. and with respect to the mentioned additionality measure yield estimated elasticities of less than.01 which, although statistically significant, are economically negligible. Indicatively, a doubling of subsidy would yield an increase in private R&D of less than one per cent. This message might primarily just reflect again the 5% dilemma that for sure also applies to subsidised product development, but it might also point to the necessity of a fine-tuning of established policy instruments. 81

82 Clean Sky 2 Interim Evaluation Report 30 June 2017 Another study finally suggests [34] that a) a macroeconomic leverage effect on private R&D can be achieved only if the policy represents an important level of subsidization for firms, and b) a partial macroeconomic crowding-out effect is likely to emerge if the policies represent a low level of subsidization for firms. meaning that large projects (not necessary for large companies!) should have given preference, most obviously to enable real game-changing innovation. Therefore, fragmentation and small-scale subsidies will in many cases have no durable effects. This can be considered as a key message underlining the meaningful approach of CSJU. Last but not least, large scale subsidies for large scale undertakings can be very efficient in creating additionality, but the results of the related leverage effect needs to be finally implemented, monitored and visualized, on the one hand not to lose focus, but also to award the generous engagement of the tax payers. 82

83 10.2 Bibliography [1] COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 558/2014 of 6 May 2014 establishing the Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking (2014). [2] Joint Technical Programme [3] Better Regulation Guideline (2015). [4] Clean Sky Final Evaluation (2017). [5] TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR AN EXPERT GROUP ON THE FINAL EVALUATION OF THE CLEAN SKY JOINT UNDERTAKING ( ) UNDER THE SEVENTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAM AND THE INTERIM EVALUATION OF THE CLEAN SKY 2 JOINT UNDERTAKING ( ) UNDER HORIZON 2020), (2016). [6] Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, (2007). [7] COUNCIL DECISION of 19 December 2006 concerning the specific programme Cooperation implementing the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007 to 2013), (2006). [8] REGULATION (EU) No 1291/2013 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 11 December 2013 establishing Horizon the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation ( ) and repealing Decision No 1982/2006/EC (2013). [9] COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 71/2007 of 20 December 2007 setting up the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking, Brussels, [10] 2016 Final Annual Activity Report - Clean Sky 2, (2016). [11] Frascati Manual 2015 Guidelines For Collecting and reporting date on research and experimental development (2015). [12] WHITE PAPER European transport policy for 2010: time to decide, [13] White Paper on transport - Roadmap to a single European Transport Area - towards a competitive and Resource -efficient transport system, (2011). [14] EUROPEAN AERONAUTICS: A VISION FOR Meeting society s needs and winning global leadership, [15] ACARE Strategic Research Agenda 2 - SRA2, (2004). [16] FWC Sector Competitiveness Studies - Competitiveness of the EU Aerospace Industry with focus on: Aeronautics Industry Within the Framework Contract of Sectoral Competitiveness Studies ENTR/06/054 Final Report (2009). [17] CLEANSKY 2nd INTERIM EVALUATION - PANEL REPORT, (2013). [18] CLEAN SKY 1st INTERIM EVALUATION - PANEL REPORT (2010). [19] CLEAN SKY 2 Impact Assessment - Final Report of the Expert Group, (2012). [20] Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking Clean Sky Programme - DEVELOPMENT PLAN (2014). [21] Raw data obtained from the CSJU on the Clean Sky 1 and Clean Sky 2 programmes, (2017). 83

84 Clean Sky 2 Interim Evaluation Report 30 June 2017 [22] 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 the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation ( )" and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1906/2006 (2013). [23] Clean Sky Joint Undertaking MANAGEMENT MANUAL (2010). [24] Call Documents of the CSJU, ( ). [25] CORDA Data on H Projects and participants in CS2, (2017). [26] 2014 Final Annual Activity Report - Clean Sky, (2014). [27] ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES EUROPEAN COMMISSION Publication of a vacancy for the Executive Director of Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking (Clean Sky 2 JU), Brussels (Temporary Agent Grade AD 14) COM/2016/20013 (2016/C 069 A/01), (2016). [28] Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission s exercise of implementing powers, (2011). [29] Call for expression of interest for the selection of Members of the Scientific Committee of the Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking (2014). [30] ACARE Strategic Research Agenda 1 -SRA1, (2002). [31] Joint Technical Proposal - Clean Sky 2, (2013). [32] Clean Sky Joint Undertaking Clean Sky Programme - DEVELOPMENT PLAN (2014). [33] M. Marino, P. Parrota, S. Lhuillery, An overall evaluation of public R&D subsidy on private R&D expenditure in absence or in combination with R&D tax credit incentives, DRUID15Rome, [34] B. Montmartin, M. Herrera, Internal and external effects of R&D subsidies and fiscal incentives: Empirical evidence using spatial dynamic panel models, Research Policy, 44 (2015) [35] Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament - Financial Perspectives , (2004). [36] COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 316/2014 of 21 March 2014 on the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to categories of technology transfer agreements., (2014). [37] CLEAN SKY Aeronautics & Air Transport JTI Proposal March 2007 (2007). [38] COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 219/2007 of 27 February 2007 on the establishment of a Joint Undertaking to develop the new generation European air traffic management system (SESAR), (2007). [39] MEMORANDUM OF COOPERATION MoC between The Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking and The Single European Sky ATM Research Joint Undertaking, (2015). [40] Single Programming Document ( ) - SESAR JU, (2017). [41] COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying document to the Proposal for a Council Regulation - Setting Up The Clean Sky Joint Undertaking - (2007). 84

85 [42] C. Dimos, G. Pugh, The effectiveness of R&D subsidies: A meta-regression analysis of the evaluation literature, Research Policy, (2016) Interviews conducted Date Name Affiliation 28/02/2017 PAGNANO, Giuseppe CSJU 28/02/2017 VAN MANEN, Ron CSJU 28/02/2017 DITTMANN, Bettina CSJU 28/02/2017 GOULAIN, Michel CSJU 1/03/2017 PODSADOWSKI, Andrzej CSJU 1/03/2017 DEN BOER, Ruud CSJU 1/03/2017 DUBOIS, Sébastien CSJU 1/03/2017 TRINCHIERI, Paolo CSJU 1/03/2017 VECCHIO, Antonio CSJU 1/03/2017 BORGAT, Romain CSJU 1/03/2017 GIANNONI, Maria-Silvia CSJU 1/03/2017 MASTANTUONO, Bruno CSJU 1/03/2017 SELMIN, Vittorio? CSJU 23/03/2017 Members of the Governing Board CSJU 23/03/2017 Members of the Scientific Board CSJU 21/03/2017 Members of the National Contact Group CSJU 21/03/2017 HENKE, Rolf ACARE/DLR 22/03/2017 PARKER, Rik CS Chair of the Governing Board 22/03/2017 MELLOR, Philipe & JONES, Geraint University of Bristol, Partmer in Clean Sky 1 29/03/2017 DE RUYTTER, Joerie Honeywell Inc., Core Partners in Clean Sky 2 07/06/2017 POUSSIN, Gilles, Thales 08/06/2017 HUBER, Sepp Airbus Helicopter 08/06/2017 MARINESCU, Marian Member of the European Parliament 10.4 Abbreviations Abbreviation ACARE ARM ASD ATM BLADE CROR CSJU CSMM EC ECO ED EP ETP EU FP Explanation Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research and Innovation in Europe Annual Review Meeting Aerospace and defence association of Europe Air Traffic Management Breakthrough Laminar Aircraft Demonstrator in Europe Counter Rotating Open Rotor Clean Sky Joint Undertaking Clean Sky Management Manual European Commission Eco-Design for Airframes and Systems Executive Director European Parliament European Technology Platform European Union Frame Programme 85

86 Clean Sky 2 Interim Evaluation Report 30 June 2017 GB GRA GRC HLTC IADP IMG4 IP ITD JTI JU LuFo MoU MRO Governing board Green Regional Aircraft Green Rotocraft High Level target concept Integrated Aircraft Demonstrator Platform The European Aeronautics industry network for R&T Intellectual Property Integrated Technology Demonstrator Joint Technology Initiative Joint Undertaking Luftfahrtforschung (German funding programme for aeronautics) Memorandum of Understanding Maintenance Repair and Overhaul MSG Member states group, Clean Sky 1 --> SRG in Clean Sky 2 PPP SAGE Public-Private-Partnership Sustainable and Green Engines SciCom Scientific Commission, Clean Sky 2 SES SESAR SFWA SGO SME SRA SRG SRA Single European Sky Single European Sky ATM Research Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft System for Green Operations Small and Medium Enterprise Strategic research agenda (ACARE) States Representative Group Strategic research and innovation agenda (ACARE) STAB Scientific and Technological Advisory Board, Clean Sky 1 TA TE TFEU TRL Transversal Activities Technical Evaluator Treaty on the Functioning of the EU Technology Readiness level WPL1, 2, 3, Work package level 1,2, Table of figures FIGURE 1 CLEAN SKY PROGRAM LOGIC AND SET-UP [10] FIGURE 2 INTERVENTION LOGIC DIAGRAM FIGURE 3 RELATIVE FINANCING FOR FRAMEWORK PROGRAMMES OVER THE LAST FRAME PROGRAMS RELATING THE TREND FOR GLOBAL FUNDING TO THE SHARE APPR. ALLOCATED FOR AERONAUTICS AND IN THAT CONTEXT, FOR COLLABORATIVE PROJECTS (CP) FIGURE 4 EU CONTRIBUTION TO THE DIFFERENT PROGRAM UNDER FP7 AND H FIGURE 5 EU FUNDING ALLOCATION TO THE DIFFERENT IADPS, ITD'S, TA AND JU RUNNING COST [2]. THE NUMBERS ARE GIVEN IN M FIGURE 6 NUMBER OF TOPICS FOR THE DIFFERENT CALLS FOR CORE PARTNERS [21] FIGURE 7 NUMBER OF TOPICS FOR THE DIFFERENT CALLS FOR CORE PARTNERS. [21] FIGURE 8 WINNER PER COUNTRY FOR THE COMPLETE SET FOR ALL CALLS FOR CORE PARTNERS (SOME PARTICIPANTS MIGHT HAVE WON IN SEVERAL CALLS) FROM [21] FIGURE 9 NUMBER OF TOPICS PER CFP PUBLISHED FOR ALL CALLS FROM 1 TO 6 [24] FIGURE 10 NUMBER OF TOPICS PER CFP BROKEN DOWN ACCORDING TO THE DIFFERENT IDTS AND IATDS AND TAS [24] FIGURE 11 NUMBER OF DAYS FOR PROPOSAL PREPARATION FOR ALL CALLS FROM 1 TO 6 [24]

87 FIGURE 12 NUMBER OF PROJECTS FOR A CERTAIN PROJECT DURATION (GIVEN IN MONTH) FOR CFP 1-4 (CALCULATED FROM CORDA [25] FIGURE 13 PROJECT COST AS A FUNCTION OF THE PROJECT DURATION (GIVEN IN MONTH) FOR CFP 1-4 (CALCULATED FROM CORDA [25] FIGURE 14 AMOUNT OF PROJECTS FOR CERTAIN BUDGETARY RANGE FOR CFP 1-4 (CALCULATED FROM CORDA [25] FIGURE 15 TOPIC SUCCESS RATE FOR THE FIRST FOUR CFP FIGURE 16 AVERAGE GRANT VOLUME PER TOPIC (IN K ) ACCORDING TO THE ACTUAL SELECTED TOPIC APPLICATIONS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION CFP 1-4. [10] FIGURE 17 AVERAGE GRANT VOLUME PER TOPIC (IN K ) ACCORDING TO THE CALL TEXTS FOR CFP 1-6 BROKEN DOWN FOR THE DIFFERENT ITDS [21] FIGURE 18 EU CONTRIBUTION VERSUS TYPE OF ORGANISATION ACCORDING [25] FIGURE 19 SHARE OF FUNDING ( =176 M ) AND SHARE OF PARTICIPANTS ( =491) AND IN THE DIFFERENT CFP 1-4 ACCORDING [25] BROKEN DOWN FOR EVERY COUNTRY (SOME PARTICIPANTS MIGHT BE PRESENT IN DIFFERENT PROJECTS) FIGURE 20 WORLD PASSENGER TRAFFIC AND CRUDE OIL PRICE AS KEY-PARAMETERS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AERONAUTICS FIGURE 21 OVERVIEW ON GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE FIGURE 22 PLANNING AND CONTROL PROCESS IN CS2 [23] FIGURE 23 WEB-BASED SOFTWARE TOOL TO BE IMPLEMENTED AT THE CS WEBSITE ON DISSEMINATION OF TECHNICAL OUTPUT FIGURE 24 CLEAN SKY JU AND THE COMMISSION TOGETHER AT THE PARIS AIRSHOW IN LE BOURGET, JUNE FIGURE 25 SHARE IN CS1 FUNDING (RED BARS) RELATED TO THE PRODUCTION VALUE IN THE EU (27 MEMBER STATES OF THE EU) FIGURE 26 SHARE IN CS2 FUNDING (ANALYSIS LIMITED TO THE REQUESTED/VALIDATED CONTRIBUTIONS SO FAR) (RED BARS) RELATED TO THE PRODUCTION VALUE IN THE EU (27 MEMBER STATES OF THE EU) Table of tables TABLE 1 KEY FINANCIAL DATA FOR THE DIFFERENT FP'S TABLE 2 KEY ACTIVITIES OF THE EVALUATION TABLE 3 EU CONTRIBUTION BROKEN DOWN TO THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF ITD AND IADP, THE TRANSVERSE ACTIVITIES (TA) AND THE PROJECTED COSTS FOR RUNNING THE CSJU, TAKEN FROM [1] AND [2] TABLE 4: CATEGORIES OF ACTIVITY PER ITD, M TABLE 5 LEADERS TABLE 6 KEY CHARACTERISTICS SHOWING DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CALL TOPICS CHARACTERISTICS IN CLEAN SKY AND IN TRADITIONAL PROGRAMMES TABLE 7 RESPONSES OF THE SURVEY WITH RESPECT TO EXPLOITATION OF RESEARCH RESULTS TABLE 8 LIST OF CHAIRS AND VICE CHAIRS OF THE GOVERNING BOARD TABLE 9 KPI REPRESENTING OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY TABLE 10 SME PARTICIPATION IN CS TABLE 11 SURVEY RESULTS ON PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT Discussion Paper Cross TJUs learnings and recommendations from the interim and final evaluations of Clean Sky 1&2, SESAR(2020) and Shift2Rail 87

88 Clean Sky 2 Interim Evaluation Report 30 June

89 89

90 Clean Sky 2 Interim Evaluation Report 30 June

91 91

92 Clean Sky 2 Interim Evaluation Report 30 June

93 93

94 Clean Sky 2 Interim Evaluation Report 30 June

95 95

96 Clean Sky 2 Interim Evaluation Report 30 June

97 97

98 Clean Sky 2 Interim Evaluation Report 30 June

99 99

100 Clean Sky 2 Interim Evaluation Report 30 June

101 101

102 Clean Sky 2 Interim Evaluation Report 30 June

103 103

104 Clean Sky 2 Interim Evaluation Report 30 June

105 105

106 Clean Sky 2 Interim Evaluation Report 30 June

107 107

PROJECT FINAL REPORT Publishable Summary

PROJECT FINAL REPORT Publishable Summary PROJECT FINAL REPORT Publishable Summary Grant Agreement number: 205768 Project acronym: AGAPE Project title: ACARE Goals Progress Evaluation Funding Scheme: Support Action Period covered: from 1/07/2008

More information

Scoping Paper for. Horizon 2020 work programme Societal Challenge 4: Smart, Green and Integrated Transport

Scoping Paper for. Horizon 2020 work programme Societal Challenge 4: Smart, Green and Integrated Transport Scoping Paper for Horizon 2020 work programme 2018-2020 Societal Challenge 4: Smart, Green and Integrated Transport Important Notice: Working Document This scoping paper will guide the preparation of the

More information

CLEAN SKY 2 Impact Assessment. Final Report of the Expert Group

CLEAN SKY 2 Impact Assessment. Final Report of the Expert Group CLEAN SKY 2 Impact Assessment Final Report of the Expert Group 29 September 2012 Authors: BERTOLINI, Enzo EURY, Serge HECKER, Peter (Rapporteur) HUGUET, Michel (Chairman) SANNA-RANDACCIO, Francesca CS2

More information

Please send your responses by to: This consultation closes on Friday, 8 April 2016.

Please send your responses by  to: This consultation closes on Friday, 8 April 2016. CONSULTATION OF STAKEHOLDERS ON POTENTIAL PRIORITIES FOR RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN THE 2018-2020 WORK PROGRAMME OF HORIZON 2020 SOCIETAL CHALLENGE 5 'CLIMATE ACTION, ENVIRONMENT, RESOURCE EFFICIENCY AND

More information

Roadmap for European Universities in Energy December 2016

Roadmap for European Universities in Energy December 2016 Roadmap for European Universities in Energy December 2016 1 Project partners This project has received funding from the European Union s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development

More information

10246/10 EV/ek 1 DG C II

10246/10 EV/ek 1 DG C II COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Brussels, 28 May 2010 10246/10 RECH 203 COMPET 177 OUTCOME OF PROCEEDINGS from: General Secretariat of the Council to: Delegations No. prev. doc.: 9451/10 RECH 173 COMPET

More information

16502/14 GT/nj 1 DG G 3 C

16502/14 GT/nj 1 DG G 3 C Council of the European Union Brussels, 8 December 2014 (OR. en) 16502/14 OUTCOME OF PROCEEDINGS From: To: Council Delegations ESPACE 92 COMPET 661 RECH 470 IND 372 TRANS 576 CSDP/PSDC 714 PESC 1279 EMPL

More information

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT. Accompanying the

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT. Accompanying the EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 30.11.2011 SEC(2011) 1428 final Volume 1 COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the Communication from the Commission 'Horizon

More information

Horizon Work Programme Leadership in enabling and industrial technologies - Introduction

Horizon Work Programme Leadership in enabling and industrial technologies - Introduction EN Horizon 2020 Work Programme 2018-2020 5. Leadership in enabling and industrial technologies - Introduction Important notice on the Horizon 2020 Work Programme This Work Programme covers 2018, 2019 and

More information

Meeting Report (Prepared by Angel Aparicio, Transport Advisory Group Rapporteur) 21 June Introduction... 1

Meeting Report (Prepared by Angel Aparicio, Transport Advisory Group Rapporteur) 21 June Introduction... 1 INFORMAL DISCUSSION WITH STAKEHOLDERS ON THE TRANSPORT COMPONENT OF THE NEXT COMMON STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK FOR RESEARCH AND INNOVATION Brussels, 16 June 2011 Meeting Report (Prepared by Angel Aparicio, Transport

More information

Association of European Space Research Establishments (ESRE): Recommendations related to. Framework Programme 9

Association of European Space Research Establishments (ESRE): Recommendations related to. Framework Programme 9 November 2017 Association of European Space Research Establishments (ESRE): Recommendations related to Framework Programme 9 I. Budget, Structure of FP 9, European Innovation Council Despite significant

More information

Conclusions concerning various issues related to the development of the European Research Area

Conclusions concerning various issues related to the development of the European Research Area COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Conclusions concerning various issues related to the development of the European Research Area The Council adopted the following conclusions: "THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN

More information

Conclusions on the future of information and communication technologies research, innovation and infrastructures

Conclusions on the future of information and communication technologies research, innovation and infrastructures COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Conclusions on the future of information and communication technologies research, innovation and infrastructures 2982nd COMPETITIVESS (Internal market, Industry and Research)

More information

Horizon 2020 Towards a Common Strategic Framework for EU Research and Innovation Funding

Horizon 2020 Towards a Common Strategic Framework for EU Research and Innovation Funding Horizon 2020 Towards a Common Strategic Framework for EU Research and Innovation Funding Rudolf Strohmeier DG Research & Innovation The context: Europe 2020 strategy Objectives of smart, sustainable and

More information

FP7 Cooperation Programme - Theme 6 Environment (including climate change) Tentative Work Programme 2011

FP7 Cooperation Programme - Theme 6 Environment (including climate change) Tentative Work Programme 2011 FP7 Cooperation Programme - Theme 6 Environment (including climate change) Tentative Work Programme 2011 European Commission Research DG Michele Galatola Unit I.3 Environmental Technologies and Pollution

More information

FP7 Funding Opportunities for the ICT Industry

FP7 Funding Opportunities for the ICT Industry FP7 Funding Opportunities for the ICT Industry Haitham S. Hamza, Ph.D. R&D Department Manager Software Engineering Competence Center Agenda FP7 Structure Overview and Calls Horizon 2020 SECC Role and How

More information

SMART CITIES Presentation

SMART CITIES Presentation Chrysses Nicolaides Director, CNE Business Development Ltd Founder, Smart Cities Mediterranean Cluster Introduction SMART CITIES Presentation 1. The Smart Cities Mediterranean Cluster The Partnership is

More information

Brief presentation of the results Ioana ISPAS ERA NET COFUND Expert Group

Brief presentation of the results Ioana ISPAS ERA NET COFUND Expert Group Brief presentation of the results Ioana ISPAS ERA NET COFUND Expert Group Mandate of the Expert Group Methodology and basic figures for ERA-NET Cofund Efficiency of ERA-NET Cofund Motivations and benefits

More information

POSITION PAPER. GREEN PAPER From Challenges to Opportunities: Towards a Common Strategic Framework for EU Research and Innovation funding

POSITION PAPER. GREEN PAPER From Challenges to Opportunities: Towards a Common Strategic Framework for EU Research and Innovation funding POSITION PAPER GREEN PAPER From Challenges to Opportunities: Towards a Common Strategic Framework for EU Research and Innovation funding Preamble CNR- National Research Council of Italy shares the vision

More information

FET Flagships in Horizon 2020

FET Flagships in Horizon 2020 HORIZON 2020 - Future & Emerging Technologies (FET) Paris, 21 st December 2017 FET Flagships in Horizon 2020 Aymard de Touzalin Deputy Head of Unit, Flagships DG Connect, European Commission 1 Horizon

More information

A Research and Innovation Agenda for a global Europe: Priorities and Opportunities for the 9 th Framework Programme

A Research and Innovation Agenda for a global Europe: Priorities and Opportunities for the 9 th Framework Programme A Research and Innovation Agenda for a global Europe: Priorities and Opportunities for the 9 th Framework Programme A Position Paper by the Young European Research Universities Network About YERUN The

More information

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT STRATEGY FOR EUROPEAN TECHNOLOGY PLATFORMS: ETP 2020

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT STRATEGY FOR EUROPEAN TECHNOLOGY PLATFORMS: ETP 2020 EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 12.7.2013 SWD(2013) 272 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT STRATEGY FOR EUROPEAN TECHNOLOGY PLATFORMS: ETP 2020 EN EN COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT STRATEGY FOR EUROPEAN

More information

THEFUTURERAILWAY THE INDUSTRY S RAIL TECHNICAL STRATEGY 2012 INNOVATION

THEFUTURERAILWAY THE INDUSTRY S RAIL TECHNICAL STRATEGY 2012 INNOVATION 73 INNOVATION 74 VISION A dynamic industry that innovates to evolve, grow and attract the best entrepreneurial talent OBJECTIVES Innovation makes a significant and continuing contribution to rail business

More information

7656/18 CF/MI/nj 1 DG G 3 C

7656/18 CF/MI/nj 1 DG G 3 C Council of the European Union Brussels, 6 April 2018 (OR. en) 7656/18 RECH 120 COMPET 192 NOTE From: To: Presidency Delegations No. prev. doc.: 7424/18 RECH 120 COMPET 192 Subject: Draft Council conclusions

More information

Position Paper. On the mid-term review of the 2011 White Paper on Transport

Position Paper. On the mid-term review of the 2011 White Paper on Transport Position Paper On the mid-term review of the 2011 White Paper on Transport Midway towards a Sustainable Transport Introduction DLR welcomes the European Commission s Communication on a sustainable future

More information

HORIZON Leadership in Enabling and Industrial Technologies (LEIT)

HORIZON Leadership in Enabling and Industrial Technologies (LEIT) HORIZON 2020 Leadership in Enabling and Industrial Technologies (LEIT) Nanotechnologies, Advanced Materials, Biotechnology and Advanced Manufacturing and Processing Disclaimer: This presentation is not

More information

THE ROLE OF TRANSPORT TECHNOLOGY PLATFORMS IN FOSTERING EXPLOITATION. Josef Mikulík Transport Research Centre - CDV

THE ROLE OF TRANSPORT TECHNOLOGY PLATFORMS IN FOSTERING EXPLOITATION. Josef Mikulík Transport Research Centre - CDV THE ROLE OF TRANSPORT TECHNOLOGY PLATFORMS IN FOSTERING EXPLOITATION Josef Mikulík Transport Research Centre - CDV Outlines European Technology Platforms ERTRAC Czech ERTRAC Other national TP Technology

More information

EUROPEAN GNSS APPLICATIONS IN H2020

EUROPEAN GNSS APPLICATIONS IN H2020 EUROPEAN GNSS APPLICATIONS IN H2020 Introduction to Call H2020-Galileo-2014-1 Marta Krywanis-Brzostowska Market Development European GNSS Agency www.gsa.europa.eu/r-d/h2020 Agenda R&D in the European GNSS

More information

Access to Research Infrastructures under Horizon 2020 and beyond

Access to Research Infrastructures under Horizon 2020 and beyond Access to Research Infrastructures under Horizon 2020 and beyond JEAN MOULIN A presentation based on slides provided by: the European Commission DG Research & Innovation Unit B4 Research Infrastructures

More information

Copernicus Evolution: Fostering Growth in the EO Downstream Services Sector

Copernicus Evolution: Fostering Growth in the EO Downstream Services Sector Copernicus Evolution: Fostering Growth in the EO Downstream Services Sector Summary: Copernicus is a European programme designed to meet the needs of the public sector for spacederived, geospatial information

More information

Position Paper of Iberian Universities Design of FP9

Position Paper of Iberian Universities Design of FP9 Position Paper of Iberian Universities Design of FP9 The Framework Programme for Research and Innovation is the most important PanEuropean programme for research and innovation, not only in size, but also

More information

Climate Change Innovation and Technology Framework 2017

Climate Change Innovation and Technology Framework 2017 Climate Change Innovation and Technology Framework 2017 Advancing Alberta s environmental performance and diversification through investments in innovation and technology Table of Contents 2 Message from

More information

Water, Energy and Environment in the scope of the Circular Economy

Water, Energy and Environment in the scope of the Circular Economy Water, Energy and Environment in the scope of the Circular Economy Maria da Graça Carvalho 11th SDEWES Conference Lisbon 2016 Contents of the Presentation 1. The Circular Economy 2. The Horizon 2020 Program

More information

The Policy Content and Process in an SDG Context: Objectives, Instruments, Capabilities and Stages

The Policy Content and Process in an SDG Context: Objectives, Instruments, Capabilities and Stages The Policy Content and Process in an SDG Context: Objectives, Instruments, Capabilities and Stages Ludovico Alcorta UNU-MERIT alcorta@merit.unu.edu www.merit.unu.edu Agenda Formulating STI policy STI policy/instrument

More information

FP9 s ambitious aims for societal impact call for a step change in interdisciplinarity and citizen engagement.

FP9 s ambitious aims for societal impact call for a step change in interdisciplinarity and citizen engagement. FP9 s ambitious aims for societal impact call for a step change in interdisciplinarity and citizen engagement. The European Alliance for SSH welcomes the invitation of the Commission to contribute to the

More information

Production research at European level supports regions and SMEs

Production research at European level supports regions and SMEs Production research at European level supports regions and SMEs José-Lorenzo Vallés New generation of products DG Research European Commission 1 Among the policy guidelines for the next Commission Successful

More information

VSNU December Broadening EU s horizons. Position paper FP9

VSNU December Broadening EU s horizons. Position paper FP9 VSNU December 2017 Broadening EU s horizons Position paper FP9 Introduction The European project was conceived to bring peace and prosperity to its citizens after two world wars. In the last decades, it

More information

8365/18 CF/nj 1 DG G 3 C

8365/18 CF/nj 1 DG G 3 C Council of the European Union Brussels, 30 April 2018 (OR. en) 8365/18 RECH 149 COMPET 246 NOTE From: To: Presidency Delegations No. prev. doc.: 8057/1/18 RECH 136 COMPET 230 Subject: Draft Council conclusions

More information

HORIZON Overview of structure and funding opportunities for EuNetAir partners and network

HORIZON Overview of structure and funding opportunities for EuNetAir partners and network European Network on New Sensing Technologies for Air Pollution Control and Environmental Sustainability - EuNetAir COST Action TD1105 INTERNATIONAL WG1-WG4 MEETING on New Sensing Technologies and Methods

More information

COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Brussels, 9 December 2008 (16.12) (OR. fr) 16767/08 RECH 410 COMPET 550

COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Brussels, 9 December 2008 (16.12) (OR. fr) 16767/08 RECH 410 COMPET 550 COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Brussels, 9 December 2008 (16.12) (OR. fr) 16767/08 RECH 410 COMPET 550 OUTCOME OF PROCEEDINGS of: Competitiveness Council on 1 and 2 December 2008 No. prev. doc. 16012/08

More information

An introduction to the 7 th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development. Gorgias Garofalakis

An introduction to the 7 th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development. Gorgias Garofalakis An introduction to the 7 th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development Gorgias Garofalakis Contents What & why Potential impact Scope Inputs Framework Programme Budget and duration

More information

Belgian Position Paper

Belgian Position Paper The "INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION" COMMISSION and the "FEDERAL CO-OPERATION" COMMISSION of the Interministerial Conference of Science Policy of Belgium Belgian Position Paper Belgian position and recommendations

More information

Technology evaluation for longer-term coordination and prioritisation of research. - Noise - D. Collin Safran

Technology evaluation for longer-term coordination and prioritisation of research. - Noise - D. Collin Safran X-NOISE Technology evaluation for longer-term coordination and prioritisation of research - Noise - D. Collin Safran Technology evaluation for longer-term coordination and prioritisation of research -

More information

EU Support for SME Innovation: The SME Instrument

EU Support for SME Innovation: The SME Instrument Audit preview Information on an upcoming audit EU Support for SME Innovation: The SME Instrument April 2019 2 Traditionally, start-ups and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the EU have faced

More information

HORIZON 2020 The new Framework Programme for Research and Innovation

HORIZON 2020 The new Framework Programme for Research and Innovation Research & Innovation HORIZON 2020 The new Framework Programme for Research and Innovation The societal challenge on secure, clean and efficient energy 2nd International DHC+ Research Conference REDEVELOP,

More information

FET Open in Horizon Roumen Borissov Scientific/Technical Project Officer Future and Emerging Technologies, DG CONNECT European Commission

FET Open in Horizon Roumen Borissov Scientific/Technical Project Officer Future and Emerging Technologies, DG CONNECT European Commission FET Open in Horizon 2020 51214 Roumen Borissov Scientific/Technical Project Officer Future and Emerging Technologies, DG CONNECT European Commission FET Open in FP7 a portfolio snapshot Evolutionary microfluidix

More information

Israel s comments on the Commission s proposal for the 7 th Framework Programme

Israel s comments on the Commission s proposal for the 7 th Framework Programme המנהלת הישראלית לתוכנית המסגרת השישית למחקר ופיתוח של האיחוד האירופי Israel-Europe R&D Directorate for FP6 Israel s comments on the Commission s proposal for the 7 th Framework Programme May 2005 1 INDEX

More information

Working together to deliver on Europe 2020

Working together to deliver on Europe 2020 Lithuanian Position Paper on the Green Paper From Challenges to Opportunities: Towards a Common Strategic Framework for EU Research and Innovation Funding Lithuania considers Common Strategic Framework

More information

HORIZON Presentation at Manufuture Perspectives on Industrial Technologies in Horizon 2020 and Beyond

HORIZON Presentation at Manufuture Perspectives on Industrial Technologies in Horizon 2020 and Beyond The EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation HORIZON 2020 Perspectives on Industrial Technologies in Horizon 2020 and Beyond Presentation at Manufuture 2017 Seán O'Reagain Deputy Head of Unit

More information

Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 30.11.2011 COM(2011) 809 final 2011/0401 (COD) Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing Horizon 2020 - The Framework Programme

More information

Europe as a Global Actor. International Dimension of Horizon 2020 and Research Opportunities with Third Countries

Europe as a Global Actor. International Dimension of Horizon 2020 and Research Opportunities with Third Countries Europe as a Global Actor International Dimension of Horizon 2020 and Research Opportunities with Third Countries The way to Horizon 2020 7 PQ CIP EIT Europa 2020 Innovation Union Horizon 2020 2007-2013

More information

From FP7 towards Horizon 2020 Workshop on " Research performance measurement and the impact of innovation in Europe" IPERF, Luxembourg, 31/10/2013

From FP7 towards Horizon 2020 Workshop on  Research performance measurement and the impact of innovation in Europe IPERF, Luxembourg, 31/10/2013 From FP7 towards Horizon 2020 Workshop on " Research performance measurement and the impact of innovation in Europe" IPERF, Luxembourg, 31/10/2013 Lucilla Sioli, European Commission, DG CONNECT Overview

More information

Space in the next MFF Commision proposals

Space in the next MFF Commision proposals Space in the next MFF Commision proposals EPIC Workshop London, 15-17 Ocotber 2018 Apostolia Karamali Deputy Head of Unit Space Policy and Research European Commission European Space Policy context 2 A

More information

demonstrator approach real market conditions would be useful to provide a unified partner search instrument for the CIP programme

demonstrator approach real market conditions  would be useful to provide a unified partner search instrument for the CIP programme Contribution by the Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Czech Republic to the public consultations on a successor programme to the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) 2007-2013 Given

More information

DRAFT TEXT on. Version 2 of 9 September 13:00 hrs

DRAFT TEXT on. Version 2 of 9 September 13:00 hrs DRAFT TEXT on SBSTA 48.2 agenda item 5 Development and transfer of technologies: Technology framework under Article 10, paragraph 4, of the Paris Agreement Version 2 of 9 September 13:00 hrs Elements of

More information

Mainstreaming PE in Horizon 2020: perspectives and ambitions

Mainstreaming PE in Horizon 2020: perspectives and ambitions CASI/PE2020 Conference Brussels, 16-17 November 2016 Mainstreaming PE in Horizon 2020: perspectives and ambitions Giuseppe BORSALINO European Commission DG RTD B7.002 'Mainstreaming RRI in Horizon 2020

More information

I. Introduction. Cover note. A. Mandate. B. Scope of the note. Technology Executive Committee. Fifteenth meeting. Bonn, Germany, September 2017

I. Introduction. Cover note. A. Mandate. B. Scope of the note. Technology Executive Committee. Fifteenth meeting. Bonn, Germany, September 2017 Technology Executive Committee 31 August 2017 Fifteenth meeting Bonn, Germany, 12 15 September 2017 Draft TEC and CTCN inputs to the forty-seventh session of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological

More information

COST FP9 Position Paper

COST FP9 Position Paper COST FP9 Position Paper 7 June 2017 COST 047/17 Key position points The next European Framework Programme for Research and Innovation should provide sufficient funding for open networks that are selected

More information

Wind Energy Technology Roadmap

Wind Energy Technology Roadmap Wind Energy Technology Roadmap Making Wind the most competitive energy source Nicolas Fichaux, TPWind Secretariat 1 TPWind involvement in SET-Plan process SRA / MDS Programme Report / Communication Hearings

More information

RENEW-ESSENCE Position Paper on FP9 September Michele Guerrini, Luca Moretti, Pier Francesco Moretti, Angelo Volpi

RENEW-ESSENCE Position Paper on FP9 September Michele Guerrini, Luca Moretti, Pier Francesco Moretti, Angelo Volpi RENEW-ESSENCE 2030 Position Paper on FP9 September 2017 Michele Guerrini, Luca Moretti, Pier Francesco Moretti, Angelo Volpi Sommario Introduction... 2 Excellence in research... 4 Support to competitiveness...

More information

Written response to the public consultation on the European Commission Green Paper: From

Written response to the public consultation on the European Commission Green Paper: From EABIS THE ACADEMY OF BUSINESS IN SOCIETY POSITION PAPER: THE EUROPEAN UNION S COMMON STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK FOR FUTURE RESEARCH AND INNOVATION FUNDING Written response to the public consultation on the European

More information

6. Introduce a Single Information Single Audit system for all types of ERA instruments.

6. Introduce a Single Information Single Audit system for all types of ERA instruments. Date December 2010 Position Paper Recommendations for the Eighth Framework Programme Association of Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU) The Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development

More information

Scoping Paper for. Horizon 2020 work programme Leadership in Enabling and Industrial Technologies Space

Scoping Paper for. Horizon 2020 work programme Leadership in Enabling and Industrial Technologies Space Scoping Paper for Horizon 2020 work programme 2018-2020 Leadership in Enabling and Industrial Technologies Space Important Notice: Working Document This scoping paper will guide the preparation of the

More information

POSITION OF THE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF ITALY (CNR) ON HORIZON 2020

POSITION OF THE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF ITALY (CNR) ON HORIZON 2020 POSITION OF THE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF ITALY (CNR) ON HORIZON 2020 General view CNR- the National Research Council of Italy welcomes the architecture designed by the European Commission for Horizon

More information

FP7 AAT Level 0. FP7 AAT Level 0. Roberto Bojeri. Workshop ACARE Italia. Torino, 17 Maggio 2012

FP7 AAT Level 0. FP7 AAT Level 0. Roberto Bojeri. Workshop ACARE Italia. Torino, 17 Maggio 2012 FP7 AAT Level 0 Roberto Bojeri Workshop ACARE Italia Torino, 17 Maggio 2012 1 Content: questions answered by this presentation Perché? 1. Scope of the Level 0 Cosa? 2. The new "instrument" Level 0 Dove?

More information

An Introdcution to Horizon 2020

An Introdcution to Horizon 2020 TURKEY IN HORIZON 2020 ALTUN/HORIZ/TR2012/0740.14-2/SER/005 An Introdcution to Horizon 2020 Thies Wittig Deputy Team Leader Project "Turkey in Horizon 2020" Dr. Thies Wittig Ø PhD in Computer Science Ø

More information

Research and Innovation Strategy for the Smart Specialisation of Catalonia. Brussels March 20th, 2014

Research and Innovation Strategy for the Smart Specialisation of Catalonia. Brussels March 20th, 2014 Research and Innovation Strategy for the Smart Specialisation of Catalonia Brussels March 20th, 2014 Contents 1. Development of RIS3CAT 2. Structure and innovative tools 3. Next steps 2 1. Development

More information

1H1 / European Research Area National RTD Support Scheme for Aeronautics in France

1H1 / European Research Area National RTD Support Scheme for Aeronautics in France AERODAYS 1H1 1H1 / European Research Area National RTD Support Scheme for Aeronautics in France The concerted approach of the French National Council for Civil Aviation research (CORAC), aligned with the

More information

Position Paper of Iberian universities. The mid-term review of Horizon 2020 and the design of FP9

Position Paper of Iberian universities. The mid-term review of Horizon 2020 and the design of FP9 Position Paper of Iberian universities The mid-term review of Horizon 2020 and the design of FP9 Introduction Horizon 2020 (H2020), the Framework Programme for research and innovation of the European Union,

More information

PRESENTATION OUTLINE

PRESENTATION OUTLINE SwafS-01-2018-2019 PRESENTATION OUTLINE - Science Education in H2020 - SEEG Report - SWAFS-01-2018-2019 - Open Schooling and collaboration on science education (CSA) 1 SwafS-01-2018-2019 Science Education

More information

No. prev. doc.: 9108/10 RECH 148 SOC 296 Subject: Social Dimension of the European Research Area - Adoption of Council conclusions

No. prev. doc.: 9108/10 RECH 148 SOC 296 Subject: Social Dimension of the European Research Area - Adoption of Council conclusions COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Brussels, 7 May 2010 9450/10 RECH 172 SOC 320 REPORT from: Permanent Representatives Committee to: Council No. prev. doc.: 9108/10 RECH 148 SOC 296 Subject: Social Dimension

More information

New societal challenges for the European Union New challenges for social sciences and the humanities

New societal challenges for the European Union New challenges for social sciences and the humanities EUROPEAN COMMISSION European Research Area Social sciences & humanities New societal challenges for the European Union New challenges for social sciences and the humanities Thinking across boundaries Modernising

More information

Strategic Transport Technology Plan

Strategic Transport Technology Plan Strategic Transport Technology Plan The Europe 2020 Strategy includes the flagship initiative "Resource efficient Europe", under which the European Commission is to present proposals to modernise the transport

More information

At its meeting on 18 May 2016, the Permanent Representatives Committee noted the unanimous agreement on the above conclusions.

At its meeting on 18 May 2016, the Permanent Representatives Committee noted the unanimous agreement on the above conclusions. Council of the European Union Brussels, 19 May 2016 (OR. en) 9008/16 NOTE CULT 42 AUDIO 61 DIGIT 52 TELECOM 83 PI 58 From: Permanent Representatives Committee (Part 1) To: Council No. prev. doc.: 8460/16

More information

Presentation of the results. Niels Gøtke, Chair of the expert group and Effie Amanatidou, Rapporteur

Presentation of the results. Niels Gøtke, Chair of the expert group and Effie Amanatidou, Rapporteur Presentation of the results Niels Gøtke, Chair of the expert group and Effie Amanatidou, Rapporteur Purpose and scope of the evaluation Methodology and basic figures for ERA-NET Cofund Efficiency of ERA-NET

More information

CO-ORDINATION MECHANISMS FOR DIGITISATION POLICIES AND PROGRAMMES:

CO-ORDINATION MECHANISMS FOR DIGITISATION POLICIES AND PROGRAMMES: CO-ORDINATION MECHANISMS FOR DIGITISATION POLICIES AND PROGRAMMES: NATIONAL REPRESENTATIVES GROUP (NRG) SUMMARY REPORT AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE MEETING OF 10 DECEMBER 2002 The third meeting of the NRG was

More information

Commission proposal for Horizon Europe. #HorizonEU THE NEXT EU RESEARCH & INNOVATION PROGRAMME ( )

Commission proposal for Horizon Europe. #HorizonEU THE NEXT EU RESEARCH & INNOVATION PROGRAMME ( ) Commission proposal for Horizon Europe THE NEXT EU RESEARCH & INNOVATION PROGRAMME (2021 2027) #HorizonEU Feilim O'Connor - DG ENER, Unit C.2 ETIP SNET Workshops 19/09/2018 Research and Innovation Commission

More information

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 28.3.2008 COM(2008) 159 final 2008/0064 (COD) Proposal for a DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL concerning the European Year of Creativity

More information

Examples of Public Procurement of R&D services within EU funded Security Research actions

Examples of Public Procurement of R&D services within EU funded Security Research actions Examples of Public Procurement of R&D services within EU funded Security Research actions Paolo Salieri 18 / 10 / 2017 paolo.salieri@ec.europa.eu PCP to steer the development of solutions towards concrete

More information

HORIZON The New EU Framework Programme for Dr. Helge Wessel DG Research and Innovation. Research and Innovation

HORIZON The New EU Framework Programme for Dr. Helge Wessel DG Research and Innovation. Research and Innovation HORIZON 2020 The New EU Framework Programme for 2014-2020 Dr. Helge Wessel DG The context: Europe 2020 strategy Objectives of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth Headline targets, including 3% of GDP

More information

COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Brussels, 18 May /06 Interinstitutional File: 2005/0044 (CNS) RECH 130 ATO 48 COMPET 129

COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Brussels, 18 May /06 Interinstitutional File: 2005/0044 (CNS) RECH 130 ATO 48 COMPET 129 COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Brussels, 18 May 2006 9481/06 Interinstitutional File: 2005/0044 (CNS) RECH 130 ATO 48 COMPET 129 NOTE from : General Secretariat to : Council No. prev. doc. : 15062/05 RECH

More information

TOWARD THE NEXT EUROPEAN RESEARCH PROGRAMME

TOWARD THE NEXT EUROPEAN RESEARCH PROGRAMME TOWARD THE NEXT EUROPEAN RESEARCH PROGRAMME NORBERT KROO HUNGARIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES AND THE SCIENTIFIC COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN RESEARCH COUNCIL BUDAPEST, 04.04.2011 GROWING SIGNIFICANCE OF KNOWLEDGE

More information

7424/18 CF/lv 1 DG G 3 C

7424/18 CF/lv 1 DG G 3 C Council of the European Union Brussels, 22 March 2018 (OR. en) 7424/18 RECH 114 COMPET 179 NOTE From: To: Subject: Presidency Delegations Draft Council conclusions on "Accelerating knowledge circulation

More information

The Rolling Agenda. 3-year strategic programme and 2-year work programme, what about it? Opportunities and obstacles

The Rolling Agenda. 3-year strategic programme and 2-year work programme, what about it? Opportunities and obstacles The Rolling Agenda 3-year strategic programme and 2-year work programme, what about it? Opportunities and obstacles Lotte Jaspers Jaspers@yellowresearch.nl +31-(0)20-422 1115 1 Our metaphor EU Policies:

More information

Draft executive summaries to target groups on industrial energy efficiency and material substitution in carbonintensive

Draft executive summaries to target groups on industrial energy efficiency and material substitution in carbonintensive Technology Executive Committee 29 August 2017 Fifteenth meeting Bonn, Germany, 12 15 September 2017 Draft executive summaries to target groups on industrial energy efficiency and material substitution

More information

November 18, 2011 MEASURES TO IMPROVE THE OPERATIONS OF THE CLIMATE INVESTMENT FUNDS

November 18, 2011 MEASURES TO IMPROVE THE OPERATIONS OF THE CLIMATE INVESTMENT FUNDS November 18, 2011 MEASURES TO IMPROVE THE OPERATIONS OF THE CLIMATE INVESTMENT FUNDS Note: At the joint meeting of the CTF and SCF Trust Fund Committees held on November 3, 2011, the meeting reviewed the

More information

Post : RIS 3 and evaluation

Post : RIS 3 and evaluation Post 2014-2020: RIS 3 and evaluation Final Conference Györ, 8th November 2011 Luisa Sanches Polcy analyst, innovation European Commission, DG REGIO Thematic Coordination and Innovation 1 Timeline November-December

More information

Tools of strategic governance of industrial innovation: Smart specialisation. 24 October, ECRN Jan Larosse

Tools of strategic governance of industrial innovation: Smart specialisation. 24 October, ECRN Jan Larosse Tools of strategic governance of industrial innovation: Smart specialisation 24 October, ECRN Jan Larosse Relative economic specialisations of Flanders Relatieve economische specialisatie van Vlaanderen

More information

L 347/104 Official Journal of the European Union

L 347/104 Official Journal of the European Union L 347/104 Official Journal of the European Union 20.12.2013 REGULATION (EU) No 1291/2013 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 11 December 2013 establishing Horizon 2020 - the Framework Programme

More information

An ecosystem to accelerate the uptake of innovation in materials technology

An ecosystem to accelerate the uptake of innovation in materials technology An ecosystem to accelerate the uptake of innovation in materials technology Report by the High Level Group of EU Member States and Associated Countries on Nanosciences, Nanotechnologies and Advanced Materials

More information

Brief to the. Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. Dr. Eliot A. Phillipson President and CEO

Brief to the. Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. Dr. Eliot A. Phillipson President and CEO Brief to the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology Dr. Eliot A. Phillipson President and CEO June 14, 2010 Table of Contents Role of the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI)...1

More information

Commission proposal for Horizon Europe. #HorizonEU THE NEXT EU RESEARCH & INNOVATION PROGRAMME ( )

Commission proposal for Horizon Europe. #HorizonEU THE NEXT EU RESEARCH & INNOVATION PROGRAMME ( ) Commission proposal for Horizon Europe THE NEXT EU RESEARCH & INNOVATION PROGRAMME (2021 2027) #HorizonEU Maria da Graça Carvalho Coimbra Group High Level Seminar 6-7 December 2018, San Servolo Research

More information

TOWARDS HORIZON EUROPE: THE 9TH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME FOR RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

TOWARDS HORIZON EUROPE: THE 9TH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME FOR RESEARCH AND INNOVATION TOWARDS HORIZON EUROPE: THE 9TH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME FOR RESEARCH AND INNOVATION Securing the future of urban mobility research & innovation in Europe June 2018 Editors: Karen Vancluysen, Secretary General,

More information

Research Infrastructures: Key points on testing Infrastructures to preserve the European leadership in aeronautics Denis Maugars

Research Infrastructures: Key points on testing Infrastructures to preserve the European leadership in aeronautics Denis Maugars D. Maugars Workshop on Aviation Research Infrastructures in Europe 25/02/13 Research Infrastructures: Key points on testing Infrastructures to preserve the European leadership in aeronautics Denis Maugars

More information

Commission proposal for Horizon Europe. #HorizonEU THE NEXT EU RESEARCH & INNOVATION PROGRAMME ( )

Commission proposal for Horizon Europe. #HorizonEU THE NEXT EU RESEARCH & INNOVATION PROGRAMME ( ) Commission proposal for Horizon Europe THE NEXT EU RESEARCH & INNOVATION PROGRAMME (2021 2027) #HorizonEU Jürgen Tiedje SPIRE PPP Brokerage Event 14 June 2018 Research and Innovation Horizon Europe is

More information

International Cooperation in Horizon 2020

International Cooperation in Horizon 2020 International Cooperation in Horizon 2020 Practical Horizon 2020 Training and Coaching for Panama Research Innovation Community Anete Beinaroviča International Cooperation Specialist Project Manager July

More information

Workshop on Enabling Technologies in CSF for EU Research and Innovation Funding

Workshop on Enabling Technologies in CSF for EU Research and Innovation Funding Workshop on Enabling Technologies in CSF for EU Research and Innovation Funding Rapporteur Professor Costas Kiparissides, Department of Chemical Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Brussels,

More information

Initial draft of the technology framework. Contents. Informal document by the Chair

Initial draft of the technology framework. Contents. Informal document by the Chair Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice Forty-eighth session Bonn, 30 April to 10 May 2018 15 March 2018 Initial draft of the technology framework Informal document by the Chair Contents

More information

Smart Management for Smart Cities. How to induce strategy building and implementation

Smart Management for Smart Cities. How to induce strategy building and implementation Smart Management for Smart Cities How to induce strategy building and implementation Why a smart city strategy? Today cities evolve faster than ever before and allthough each city has a unique setting,

More information

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 16.12.2010 COM(2010) 763 final REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMT AND THE COUNCIL First Interim Evaluation of the Ambient Assisted Living Joint Programme

More information