safeguarding swiss interests in rules for participation & dissemination of horizon 2020 ·...
Post on 25-Jul-2020
6 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Research carried out under the supervision of David Bohmert, Head of Office at SwissCore
René Schwok, Professor at the European Institute of University of Geneva
Brussels, 26 July 2012
Safeguarding Swiss interests in
Rules for Participation & Dissemination of
Horizon 2020
Douglas Armendone
Master in Public Management
at University of Geneva
Contents
Acronyms List ................................................................................................................. 4
Country abbreviations...................................................................................................... 5
Executive summary ......................................................................................................... 6
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 8
1 Problem analysis and research questions ...................................................................... 9
1.1 Theoretical and empirical questions ........................................................................ 9
1.2 Methodology and goals ....................................................................................... 10
2 Rules for Participation of Horizon 2020 ....................................................................... 13
2.1 Context ............................................................................................................ 13
2.2 Scope and modifications ..................................................................................... 14
2.3 Simplification measures ...................................................................................... 15
2.4 General main issues ........................................................................................... 17
2.4.1 Legal basis and conflicts with other legislation .................................................. 17
2.4.2 Funding rates and cost reimbursement ............................................................ 18
2.4.3 Intellectual property rights ............................................................................. 19
2.5 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 19
3 Towards Swiss managerial and administrative interests................................................. 20
3.1 Formation of national consensus in policy formulation ............................................. 20
3.2 Swiss stakeholders’ interests ............................................................................... 21
3.2.1 Rectors’ Conference of the Swiss Universities (CRUS) ........................................ 22
3.2.2 Rectors’ Conference of the Swiss Universities of Applied Sciences (KFH) ............... 22
3.2.3 Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences ............................................................. 22
3.2.4 Commission for Technology and Innovation (CTI) .............................................. 23
3.2.5 Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) ....................................................... 23
3.3 Policy making process in the Swiss System ............................................................ 24
3.3.1 Swiss managerial and administrative interests .................................................. 24
3.3.2 Implementing agencies ................................................................................. 26
3.4 Decision-making process ..................................................................................... 28
3.5 Swiss position on RfP .......................................................................................... 29
3.6 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 29
4 Positions of Council and EP ....................................................................................... 30
4.1 Ordinary legislative procedure (former co-decision procedure) .................................. 30
4.2 European Parliament .......................................................................................... 31
4.3 Council ............................................................................................................. 32
4.3.1 Germany ..................................................................................................... 33
4.3.2 United Kingdom............................................................................................ 34
4.3.3 Netherlands ................................................................................................. 34
4.4 Norway ............................................................................................................. 34
4.5 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 35
5 Conclusions & Recommendations ............................................................................... 37
5.1 Horizon 2020 versus Structural Funds ................................................................... 37
5.2 VAT Recoverability ............................................................................................. 37
5.3 Funding rates .................................................................................................... 38
5.4 Indirect costs .................................................................................................... 38
5.5 Reporting and auditing ........................................................................................ 38
5.6 Additional observations ....................................................................................... 39
Appendices .................................................................................................................. 41
Appendix I: Ordinary legislative procedure (chart flow) .................................................... 41
Appendix II: Summary of EU agenda and Swiss inputs in Horizon 2020 .............................. 42
Appendix III: List of interviews and open questions ......................................................... 44
Bibliography ................................................................................................................. 49
Acronyms List
AC Associated Country
CHF Swiss francs
CIP Competitiveness and Innovation Programme
Council Council of the European Union
CRUS Rectors’ Conference of the Swiss Universities
CTI Commission for Technology and Innovation
DG Budget Directorate-General for Budget
DG RTD Directorate-General for Research & Innovation
EARTO European Association of Research and Technology Organisations
ECA European Court of Auditors
EIT European Institute of Innovation and Technology
EP European Parliament
EPFL École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne ERA European Research Area
ERA-Net European Research Area Network
ERC European Research Council
ETH Zürich Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich
EU European Union
EUA European University Association
Euratom European Atomic Energy Community
FIT Federal Institutes of Technology (i.e. ETHZ and EPFL and their associated research
institutes)
FP Framework Programme
FP6 Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development
FP7 Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development
FP8 Eighth Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (as
Horizon 2020 was previously called. It is not an official name.)
FR Financial Regulation
GA Grant Agreement
Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020)
IGLO Informal Group of RTD Liaison Offices in Brussels for EU R&D
IPR Intellectual Property Rights
JPI Joint Programming Initiatives
JTI Joint Technology Initiatives
KFH Rectors’ Conference of the Swiss Universities of Applied Science
MFF Multiannual Financial Framework
Mission CH EU Mission of Switzerland to the European Union
MS Member State
MSCA Marie Skłodowska Curie Actions
OPET Federal Office for Professional Education and Technology
PET Professional Education and Training
PMC Programme Management Committees
PPP Public Private Partnership
PSI Paul Scherrer Institut R&D Research and Development
RECH WG Council Research Working Party
RfP Rules for Participation and Dissemination
RTD Research and Technology Development
SER State Secretariat for Education and Research
SFOE Swiss Federal Office of Energy
SME Small and Medium Enterprise
SNSF Swiss National Science Foundation
TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
UAS Universities of Applied Sciences
VAT Value Added Tax
VET Vocational Education and Training
WG Working Group
Country abbreviations
AT Austria
BE Belgium
BG Bulgaria
CH Switzerland (Confœderatio Helvetica)
CY Cyprus
CZ Czech Republic
DE Germany
DK Denmark
EE Estonia
ES Spain
FI Finland
FR France
GR Greece
HR Croatia
HU Hungary
IE Ireland
IS Iceland
IT Italy
LT Lithuania
LU Luxembourg
LV Latvia
MK Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
MT Malta
NL Netherlands
NO Norway
PL Poland
PT Portugal
RO Romania
RS Serbia
SE Sweden
SI Slovenia
SK Slovakia
TR Turkey
UK United Kingdom
Safeguarding Swiss interests in RfP of Horizon 2020
©SwissCore Page 6
Executive summary
In order to contribute to safeguarding the Swiss managerial, administrative and research
interests in the future Framework Programme (FP) for Research and Innovation of the
European Union (EU) from 2014 to 2020, I carried out this study during a six-month
traineeship at SwissCore analysing the Rules for Participation and Dissemination (RfP)
proposed for Horizon 2020. The legislative developments of Horizon 2020 and its RfP are
indeed complex. At this stage, the European Commission (EC) proposals are subject to inter-
institutional discussions which will most likely bring changes through either amendments of
the Council of the European Union (Council) or of the European Parliament (EP).
The current RfP are of key importance (in comparison with former RfP) due to the proposed
broader scope and foreseen simplification. In other words, a single set of rules will be
applicable to all beneficiaries and activities funded under Horizon 2020. As part of the larger
package, the RfP are a complex subject that should not be overlooked by research
stakeholders and governments. The RfP cover, for instance, funding rates and cost
reimbursement, reporting and auditing, and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and
dissemination rules which will apply to the results of research and innovation activities
performed with Horizon 2020 funds.
In a broader sense, the RfP the EC has proposed for Horizon 2020 respect the preference
clearly expressed and strongly supported by participants not to have a complete redesign of
the existing rules. They are thus focused on the stability of the existing ones and any
simplification measure aims to outweigh the costs of its implementation. The proposed RfP
have been designed in a way that they will most probably not only increase coherence with
other EU funding programmes (e.g. synergies with Structural Funds), but also reduce the
existing administrative burden that participants are confronted with. The proposed
simplification measures, according to the EC, will address particularly the legal basis and
conflicts with other legislation, funding rates and cost reimbursement and IPR issues. The EC
proposed moreover to extend the scope of the future RfP to the Competitiveness and
Innovation Programme (CIP) and the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT)
actions as they are proposed to make part of Horizon 2020. Besides, there are in the RfP of
Horizon 2020 new forms of funding specifically targeted at innovation coupled with IPR rules
that facilitate Small and Medium Enterprise (SME) participation.
The description of the decision-making process at European level indicates that the RfP have
definitely an influence in the general whole design of Horizon 2020. Therefore, the RfP are of
strategic importance for the concrete participation of Switzerland (CH) in Horizon 2020 and
will influence the future association and implementation of the programme. The goal of this
study is to give answers to concerns raised by several European constituencies, also in CH.
For instance, as the discussions progressed in Brussels, participants have requested the EC to
define which articles of the RfP refer to which articles in the Financial Regulation (FR). There
seems to be moreover a general perception that the inclusion of Value Added Tax (VAT)
among the eligible costs is a positive element. In its position, CH has noted that the 20%
proposed flat rate for indirect costs could be too low and as a result be harmful for
participation. There is a general agreement on this issue and some participants have proposed
to raise the rate (for instance, some beneficiaries make reference to 40%) and also
recommended the EC to maintain full-cost-based reimbursement as an option. In addition,
several participants have requested the EC to provide clearer IPR rules and to focus towards
achieving a good balance between academia and business and industries. From the current
Safeguarding Swiss interests in RfP of Horizon 2020
©SwissCore Page 7
developments, it is possible to affirm that the funding rates will probably be one of the last
points to be agreed upon. Several beneficiaries do not approve the 100/20 proposal, but no
other solution seems to please them all. It will be a challenging process to reach consensus.
Taking into account the partial general approach reached by the Danish presidency in the first
half of 2012, the discussions in EP and the reaction of the EC on the Danish compromise so
far, it seems plausible to state that the Council, EP and EC agree on the most important
elements of Horizon 2020. However, differences remain regarding the proposition of the EC
on the reimbursement mechanisms. The 20% flat rate for the indirect costs is considered too
low and not sufficient to reward organisations that moved to full costing. In this context, the
EC admits that it is possible (and even necessary) to further review the funding models, but
underlined the importance of the flat rates within the simplification process. When the Council
will release its final conclusions on the RfP in October 2012, modifications in the funding rules
can be expected.
With the Swiss case taken into consideration, the conclusions in this study are coupled with a
few recommendations that could be useful not only to the Swiss science and research
community, but also to other stakeholders of Horizon 2020. For instance, in order to preserve
excellence as the only criterion in Horizon 2020, beneficiaries could consider underlining the
need to make a distinction between participation in every programme (e.g. Structural Funds),
while fostering the development of a ‘stairway of excellence’, which leads less developed
regions to fully participate in Horizon 2020, through capacity-building measures. Although
VAT is included as eligible cost and that it is seen as positive by beneficiaries, they could still
emphasise that the EC should provide clarity, consistency and unambiguity with regard to VAT
recoverability. The rules should be clarified especially in cases of contradictory rules on the
national and European levels.
For CH and other beneficiaries, the main objective of Horizon 2020 should be to couple
research and innovation. However, if public research organisations have to provide even more
co-financing in close to market projects, they will most probably not be willing to participate.
This discussion on whether the proposals for direct and indirect costs lead to an increase or
loss of participation, should not be overlooked by the European institutions and the
participants themselves. Following the critics on the proposed flat rate of 20% for indirect
costs, in the current context, the point is whether a higher rate of 40% would correspond to
researchers interests (but, noting that the higher the rate, the lower the number of projects
which will be funded in Horizon 2020). Finally, to improve reporting and auditing procedures,
participants could emphasise that a coherent interpretation of rules between EC officers and
auditors and the traceability of officers decisions is necessary and should be ensured.
Indeed, the presence of multiple access points at EU level pose a challenge for Swiss
stakeholders, for the European institutions are dramatically different in both their composition
and informational needs. Having described the EU legislative procedure, I concluded that
there are many windows for the Swiss Government and stakeholders to bring inputs to the
discussions in Brussels. Thus, the hypothesis of my thesis, that as a non-member CH cannot
influence decisions at EU level, could be refuted. For CH, both EC and EP are relevant places
to safeguard its interests and the case of RfP of Horizon 2020 studied in this thesis suggests
CH succeeds in achieving this. As a final observation, the subject of this research has an
interesting horizontal nature. It covers multi-disciplinary topics, ranging from pure policy
matters to scientific, legal and financial ones. Consequently, this study could add to the
inspiration of stakeholders and operators alike.
Safeguarding Swiss interests in RfP of Horizon 2020
©SwissCore Page 8
Introduction1
On 30 November 2011, the European Commission (EC) published its proposal for the
Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (Horizon 2020) (EC, 2011a), a new
integrated funding system through which the European Union (EU) will support research and
innovation from 2014 to 2020. This proposal is discussed by the Council of the EU (Council)
and the European Parliament (EP) during 2012 and should be adopted during 2013. As part of
the programme, the Rules for Participation and Dissemination (RfP) (EC, 2011b) are proposed
to complement the Financial Regulation (FR) of the EU regarding the managerial and
administrative aspects of the implementation of Horizon 2020, e.g. with regard to funding
rules and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR).
During the Danish presidency of the Council in the first half of 2012 the focus was on
achieving a ‘partial general approach’, i.e. an agreement on the structure of Horizon 2020,
but not on the budget. Under the Cypriot presidency in the second half of 2012, the RfP will
be discussed and also the amount and distribution of the funding (i.e. finances/budget) should
be settled (Council, 2012, p. 2). As above-mentioned, the RfP are subject to the FR, which
may be adopted by the Council and the EP by the end of 2012. The adoption of the FR
enables the start of the work to formulate the consequences of both the FR and the RfP for
the subsequent Grant Agreement (GA) and model consortium agreements.
The EC proposal for the RfP must be viewed in the light of the broader EU strategy to reduce
the administrative burdens for beneficiaries of EU funding in general (EC, 2011c, p. 97) and
the intention to simplify the Framework Programmes (FPs) in particular (EC, 2010). Swiss
scientists and research institutions participate in the FPs as of 1987. As Switzerland (CH) is
formally associated to the FPs as of 2004, its interest in both the proposal for Horizon 2020 as
well as its RfP is eminent (SER, 2010, p. 37).
As for the structure of the research, following this introductory section, Chapter 1 specifies
the problem analysis and research questions. Chapter 2 contains details on what the EC has
proposed for the RfP of Horizon 2020. Chapter 3 describes the managerial, administrative
and research interests of CH, including a theoretical perspective on the formation of national
consensus. Chapter 4 looks at the institutional context and positions of the Council2 and the
EP. Finally, Chapter 5 translates the findings into conclusions and recommendations to
safeguard Swiss interests in RfP of Horizon 2020. Based on the arguments developed, I also
provide an answer to my hypothesis. In the Appendices the following information is
provided: (I) a chart flow of the EU co-decision procedure, (II) a summary of the EU agenda
and Swiss inputs to Horizon 2020 and (III) a list of interviewed Swiss stakeholders and
European institutions.3
1 Master thesis in Public Management (MAP) by Douglas Armendone (armendo0@etu.unige.ch) enrolled at the
University of Geneva, based on research carried out during a traineeship at SwissCore under the supervision of
David Bohmert, Head of Office, and written under the academic supervision of René Schwok, Professor at the
European Institute of Geneva University. 2 The participants taken into consideration are EC, CH, Norway (NO), EP and Council of the EU (Council)
[Germany (GE), United Kingdom (UK) and Netherlands (NL)]. 3 Although participants are identified in Appendix III, according to the Chatham House Rule, their inputs are not
explicitly indicated on an individual basis. I assume full responsibility for the interpretation of the facts and
conclusions. Therefore, not to misunderstand the reader, the form ‘I’ is purposely used in the research.
Safeguarding Swiss interests in RfP of Horizon 2020
©SwissCore Page 9
1 Problem analysis and research questions
This chapter provides information on the theoretical and empirical questions (1.1), it brings as
well a description of methodology and models applied and the goals of this research (1.2).
1.1 Theoretical and empirical questions
The Swiss scientists and research institutions participate well in the FPs and it is therefore
crucial to safeguard their interests within the next programme. The hypothesis of this thesis is
that CH cannot influence decisions at EU level as a non-member. To address the issue,
this paper deals with the RfP proposed for Horizon 20204 and elaborates on the following
theoretical questions:
(A) What RfP has the EC proposed for Horizon 2020?
My aim is to describe the proposal published by the EC, highlighting the differences in the RfP
of the future European funding programme in comparison with its predecessor, the Seventh
Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP7). Moreover, after
describing the context in which the EC published its proposal, I elaborate on the new scope
and the measures introduced in the new set of rules. I propose moreover a ‘general’ list of
main issues concerning the RfP based on informal discussions among research liaison offices
located in Brussels.
(B) How are plural interests translated into consensual interests in CH?
To address this question, I define the formal and informal relations of Swiss major
stakeholders. The positions of Swiss research institutions were taken into consideration by
means of text analysis of their position papers. Namely, these institutions are the Rectors’
Conference of the Swiss Universities (CRUS) (1), the Rectors’ Conference of the Swiss
Universities of Applied Sciences (KFH) (2) and the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences (3),
the Commission for Technology and Innovation (CTI) (4) and the Swiss National Science
Foundation (SNSF) (5).
Concerning the Swiss managerial and administrative interests, I relied on the State
Secretariat for Education and Research (SER) (6), the Federal Office for Professional
Education and Technology (OPET) (7) and the Mission of Switzerland to the European Union
(Mission CH EU) (8). I also consulted the implementing agencies, Euresearch (9) and
SwissCore (10).
The aim is to demonstrate (b.1) in which ways the positions are established; and (b.2) how is
the process of reaching balance among inputs of several stakeholders, which have different
interests and needs; and (b.3) which means are used to draw the Swiss position, which is
defended and promoted in Brussels.
(C) How can national interests influence policy formulation at European Union level?
Here, I discuss (c.1) to what extent the proposal can be modified?; (c.2) what are the
potential gains of this modification (i.e., in the RfP)?
4 Besides its scientific interest, this study could also be carried due to its relevance for SwissCore and its clients.
Safeguarding Swiss interests in RfP of Horizon 2020
©SwissCore Page 10
Furthermore, this thesis also addresses the following main empirical question:
(D) How to safeguard the managerial and administrative interests as well as the
research interests of the Swiss research institutions in RfP of Horizon 2020?
I have identified the following sub questions: (d.1) What are the Swiss interests regarding the
RfP? (d.2) What is the current institutional context of the EP?; and, (d.3) how can Swiss
stakeholders influence the further discussion and adoption of the RfP in order to optimally
safeguard their interests?
1.2 Methodology and goals
The aim of this research is to gain insight into the effects of EU programmes vis-à-vis the
context of a non-member country. I analyse the RfP proposed for Horizon 2020 taking into
consideration the interests of Swiss stakeholders. This case is an interesting one, as CH is not
a member state of the EU. Thus, this research allows to gain insight into the influence of a
non-member on the EU decision-making process. This research identifies moreover the means
that participants have to influence the effects of such programmes on their national structure
and safeguard their own interests. In this study, the hierarchy of legislation (European vs.
national) is cleared as I elaborate on the institutional context of European law, i.e., Treaty on
the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), from a Swiss perspective.
Regarding the scope, this research does not advise on Horizon 2020. Besides, only a limited
number of EU member states is taken into account when looking at the possible Council
positions (i.e. Germany, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands) as well as Norway,
selected for their location (i.e. all European countries, while NO is not a EU member state, as
CH) and their expertise in research and innovation, according to the Innovation Union
Scoreboard 2011 (EC, 2012b):
European Countries’ Innovation Performance5
5 Source: Innovation Union Scoreboard 2011 (EC, 2012b, p. 17).
Safeguarding Swiss interests in RfP of Horizon 2020
©SwissCore Page 11
In the current research a set of pictures from relevant episodes concerning the framework
programmes and their respective rules for participation is incorporated. Please take note, that
only developments until end of May 2012 are taken into account. In this respect, the
Competitiveness Council meeting of 31 May 2012 is an important milestone in the process, as
the Danish presidency of the Council has achieved a ‘partial general approach’ on Horizon
2020. (Council, 2012, p. 2).
The desktop research was based on the empirical documents available. They include, for
instance, position papers from the above-mentioned Helvetian stakeholders as well as
participant countries. The text analysis of these position papers was made through the lens of
the RfP, meaning that special attention was paid to content related to the proposed RfP.
The theoretical framework is based on the approach of David Easton and on the model of
Charles Jones. From Easton, I elaborated on the transformation of inputs of demand from
stakeholders into outputs of decisions from the Swiss Government. Jones’ model forms the
basis for describing the policy formulation process behind the Swiss position.
Following the desktop research and literature review, the primary findings were verified
through semi-structured interviews. With this purpose, the following groups of interviews
were organised:
Round 1 – Swiss stakeholders
SNSF, Euresearch and SwissCore
The objective of liaising with these stakeholders is to understand how they have defined their
positions in Horizon 2020 and have contributed to design and implement the Swiss position.
The questions focused on formal and informal roles and on the means through which these
actors provided input to the debate. The role of Euresearch and SwissCore as implementing
agencies is elaborated.
Round 2 – Swiss Government
SER, OPET and Mission CH EU
The aim of the interviews with the Swiss Government is to trace the stakeholder consultation
process leading to the Swiss position. I looked for answers to questions as what happened in
formal and informal stakeholder meetings during the months before the EC published its
proposal in Brussels.
Round 3 – EC EC public officials have been interviewed concerning their reaction vis-à-vis the Swiss position
and on the mechanisms of association. Also, I focused on the means to safeguard Swiss
interests in the RfP proposed for Horizon 2020 and discussed the limits and opportunities CH
has to influence the FP negotiations.
Round 4 - EP
The interviews with the EP aimed to understand how the Swiss position is taken into
consideration in their discussions and what are the means for optimally safeguarding Swiss
interests from their perspective. This was elaborated with regard to the different roles and
strategies that could be adopted by Swiss stakeholders and the Government itself. The EP
was also questioned whether as a non-member CH can influence the decisions on Horizon
2020 and its RfP.
Safeguarding Swiss interests in RfP of Horizon 2020
©SwissCore Page 12
Round 5 – Council
As detailed Council negotiations on the RfP have not yet commenced, UK, NL and DE did not
have yet a formal position on the issues discussed in this research. However, the desktop
research together with the contacts with the Science and Technology Counsellors of these
countries in their Permanent Representations to the EU allowed to identify possible Council
positions. The collaboration to outline ‘likely positions’ is based therefore on individual views.
However, none of the Council contacts should be made accountable for the conclusions drawn
in this research, as our exchanges were moreover coupled with documents publicly available
communicating respective national positions.
Furthermore, for all the rounds of interviews, follow-up took place with each contact person in
order to obtain their agreement on the final text (i.e. through emails or telephone calls) The
questionnaire with the list of contact persons and respective (open) questions is available in
Appendix III.
Safeguarding Swiss interests in RfP of Horizon 2020
©SwissCore Page 13
2 Rules for Participation of Horizon 2020
In the FPs, the RfP define the rights and obligations of legal entities intending to take part in
the actions. They establish moreover the principles for the exploitation and dissemination of
the results of research undertaken with European public funds (EC, 2011d, p. 2). In Horizon
2020, the RfP are designed to ensure key objectives of the new FP. These key objectives are:
(i) integration of support to innovation, (ii) coherence of the rules and (iii) simplification for
the benefit of participants (EC, 2011f).
In this chapter, the RfP proposed for Horizon 2020 are introduced and it is indicated, when
relevant, if and how they differ from the predecessor rules governing FP7. In the first place,
the context in which the EC published its proposal (2.1) is described. Secondly, the new scope
and key modifications in the RfP (2.2) are assessed. Then, the proposed simplification
measures (2.3) are analysed as well as the main issues in the RfP (2.4). Thereafter, a brief
conclusion is provided on what RfP the EC has proposed for Horizon 2020 (2.5).
2.1 Context
The EC started the preparation for Horizon 2020 early in the year 2010, according to a note
presenting the roadmap and working modalities for the preparation of the EC's proposals for
Horizon 2020 (EC, 2010b). In October 2010, the EC published a Communication on the
Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative Innovation Union 6 (EC, 2010d), which aims at securing
Europe’s global competitiveness. This Communication outline the broader policy context of
Horizon 2020, which is the financial instrument implementing the Innovation Union and part
of the drive to create new growth and jobs in Europe (EC, 2012i).
From February to May 2011, the EC also launched a discussion on the future of European
research and innovation funding programmes by means of a Green Paper Consultation (EC,
2011i). This consultation was an invitation to beneficiaries to engage in a public debate on the
key issues to be taken into account in the future programmes.
In May 2011, the Directorate-General for Research & Innovation (DG RTD) – which was
designated as the lead service for the development of the proposals – provided the outlines of
Horizon 2020 proposals. Later on, it published the proposals on 30 November 2011 (EC,
2011a).
Together with the EC Communication on ‘Horizon 2020 – The Framework Programme for
Research and Innovation’ (EC, 2011a), the RfP are one of the elements in the set of proposals
the EC published in the end of 2011. The RfP support “the Europe 2020 strategy, which
identified research and innovation as central to achieving the objectives of smart, sustainable
and inclusive growth” (EC, 2011b, p. 2). To be precise, this package consists of:
1. a proposal for a Regulation7 of the EP and Council establishing Horizon 2020 and laying
“down the general objectives, rationale and Union added value, the financial envelope and
provisions on control, monitoring and evaluation”;
6 The ‘Innovation Union Scoreboard 2010’ tracks progress in innovation performance within and outside the EU.
As can be observed, of the non-EU European countries, CH was in 2010 the overall innovation leader
outperforming all EU MS (EC, 2011j, p. 5). 7 A ‘Regulation’ is similar to a national law with the difference that it is applicable in all EU countries. Directly
applicable, it has immediate effects for individuals. A ‘Decision' only deals with a particular issue and specifically
mentioned persons or organisations, it focuses more on applicants (auditors, evaluators, etc) (EC, 2012g).
Safeguarding Swiss interests in RfP of Horizon 2020
©SwissCore Page 14
2. a proposal for a Council Decision establishing a single specific programme implementing
Horizon 2020, “laying down the implementation modalities and the content in terms of the
broad lines of activities”;
3. a proposal for a Regulation of the EP and Council laying down the RfP and dissemination
in Horizon 2020, which sets “the modes of funding and reimbursement of costs, conditions
for participation, selection and award criteria and the rules on ownership, exploitation and
dissemination of results”;
4. a proposal for a Council Regulation on the research and training programme of the
European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) (2014-2018), a complementary proposal
for the part of Horizon 2020 corresponding to the Euratom Treaty (EC, 2011a, p. 3).
The four above-mentioned proposals are accompanied moreover by an ex-ante impact
assessment, in which the EC shows that there is a need for public intervention in research and
innovation as the market will not deliver European leadership in the current economic context
(EC, 2011d). Likewise, the conclusion of the impact assessment is that the intervention at the
EU-level reduces fragmentation and inefficiencies (e.g. duplication) of research developed at
the national level. In other words, the European added value increases effectiveness of
research and innovation actions. Although the EU needs to simplify “the terms and procedures
from the perspective of the participants to ensure the most efficient implementation” (EC,
2011b, p. 2), it has the capacity to bring “together knowledge and experience from different
contexts, supporting cross-country comparisons of innovation policy tools and experiences,
and providing the opportunity to identify, promote and test best practices from over the
widest possible area” (EC, 2011d, p. 12).
The EC has also published a separate impact assessment concerning the RfP of Horizon 2020
(EC, 2011e) specifying that the full integration of FP7, the Competitiveness and Innovation
Programme (CIP) and the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) into one
single framework characterises a significant change of policy. In addition, it affirmed that
bringing together these three main sources of funding would affect in a positive way the
issues of coherence, simplification and administrative burden that are at the core of the RfP
(EC, 2011e, p. 22). In brief, in the EC proposal a common set of rules can be found aiming at
reducing “difficulties, confusion and uncertainty for participants and stakeholders”, and as
stated in the specific impact assessment undertaken for the RfP, with its proposal the EC has
avoided an alternative scenario in which “at least 12 sets of rules” would be established “by
different actors governing rights and obligations of participants in different types of actions,
as well as various guidelines” (EC, 2011e, p. 22). The RfP constitute thus a simplification
measure and take into account the need for easy access for all participants.
2.2 Scope and modifications
The scope of the RfP has been enhanced to apply to all parts and activities funded under
Horizon 2020. This also includes measures under article 185 and article 187 of the TFEU,
meaning 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” (EU, 2008). There is a straight link, for example, with actions such as Joint
Technology Initiatives (JTI) and Public Private Partnerships (PPP), but also the European
Research Area Network (ERA-Net) and Joint Programming Initiatives (JPI). Despite this, the
proposal also foresees a certain degree of flexibility when needed.
The changes in RfP of Horizon 2020 begin therefore with its broader scope (art. 1), as a
single set of rules is now applicable to all beneficiaries (i.e. participants and funding bodies) in
Safeguarding Swiss interests in RfP of Horizon 2020
©SwissCore Page 15
research and innovation programmes and covering “the whole innovation chain, ranging from
frontier research over technological development to ‘close to market’ applications” (EC,
2011f). New forms of funding include ‘programme co-fund action’ (art. 2), i.e. an action
funded through a grant “which is supplementing individual calls or programmes” (EC, 2011b,
p. 10); prizes (art. 34 & 48); pre-commercial procurement and public procurement of
innovative solutions which are specifically targeted at innovation (art. 35 & 49) and additional
financial instruments (art. 36). Restricted participation (art. 6) in work programme in some
specific cases, may it be for security reasons or where participation in a third country’s
research and innovation programmes could turn out to be prejudicial to the EU’s interests.
(EC, 2011b). Moreover, the EC proposed cumulative funding (art. 31) provided that the
grants do not cover the same cost items. Regarding access rights for the Union (art. 46),
the EC states that “for the purpose of developing, implementing and monitoring” policies or
programmes the Union institutions and its bodies “shall enjoy access rights to the results of a
participant that has received union funding”. Other changes include joint calls for proposals
with third countries or international organisations (art. 11); the possibility to adopt grant
decisions (art. 17), instead of entering into grant agreements; and, an extended scope for the
participant guarantee fund to EU funding bodies (art. 32) (EC, 2011b). In addition to that, the
EC proposed specific provisions on minimum conditions and IPR which should facilitate the
participation of SMEs.
2.3 Simplification measures
In the context of simplification, the EC published a communication on ‘A Simplification Agenda
for the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2014-2020’ on 8 February 2012 bringing
together in a single document over 120 changes proposed to simplify the rules on EU funding
(EC, 2012). The MFF translates the EU’s political priorities for a five years period into financial
terms, but does not cover all the details as in an annual budget. It specifies moreover the
policy objectives and the means to finance them taking the latest FR into consideration. As a
result, the FR is the main point of reference for the common “principles and procedures
governing the establishment and implementation of the EU budget” (i.e. planning and
management) by the EC in cooperation with the member states, as well as the control of
finances (EC, 2012a). Particularly, the FR contains not only the general (financial) rules and
principles applicable to all sectors, but also serves as a reference for other sector-specific
legislation. With this is mind, I can affirm that the EC proposal for the RfP are another
essential item of the MFF simplification. Besides, the proposal for simplifying the MFF certainly
influences the simplification of Horizon 2020.
Namely, concrete measures on simplification in the EC proposal for the RfP include less ex-
ante financial checks. It means that on the basis of available information, if there is no
doubt about the financial capacity of the coordinator or other participants, the financial
viability check will only be made systematically when EU funding requested for a project is
equal or superior to €500’000 (art. 14). Also, the EC or relevant funding body should put into
place a secure electronic system for exchanges with the participants (art. 18).
On the one side, the EC proposed a funding rate of 100% (of eligible direct costs) for
research projects, but limited to a maximum of 70% the funding for projects ‘close to
market’, i.e. “such as prototyping, testing, demonstrating, experimental development,
piloting, market replication” (art. 22) (EC, 2011b). On the other side, the proposal foresees a
further mount of 20% for indirect costs. This 20% flat rate will apply (art. 24), but by way
Safeguarding Swiss interests in RfP of Horizon 2020
©SwissCore Page 16
of derogation, indirect costs may be declared in the form of a lump sum or scale of unit costs
when provided for in the work programme or work plan.
While a time recording system (i.e. timesheets) remains a requirement as the evidence for
calculation of personnel costs related to annual productive hours worked under the action,
for researches working exclusively (i.e. full-time) in an EU project, time recording is not
required, instead just a declaration of the participant (art. 25). This principle is related to a
broader acceptance of average personnel costs, now under scale of unit costs (which will be
determined based on statistical data or similar objective means; or auditable historical data of
the participant) (art. 27). Also, the EC has proposed less audit certificates, meaning that
certificates on financial statements will be necessary only for final payments and when
the total contribution claimed by the participants on the basis of actual costs is equal to or
greater than €325’000 (art. 28) (EC, 2011b). In current FP7, the threshold is €375’000
(art.34, al.2) (EC, 2006).
Nevertheless, examples of important elements that are maintained are the minimum
conditions for participation (art. 8), i.e. at least three independent legal entities from three
different Member States (MS) or an Associated Country (AC). Moreover, “in the case of
European Research Council (ERC) frontier research actions, the SME instrument, programme
co-fund actions and in justified cases provided for in the work programme or work plan, the
minimum condition shall be the participation of one legal entity” established in a MS or AC
(EC, 2011b).
Regarding the eligibility for funding (art. 9), any legal entity established in a MS or AC, or
created under Union law, any international European interest organisation is eligible; also,
any legal entity established in a third country identified in the work programme as well as
other entities if participation is deemed essential or the funding is provided under a bilateral
agreement. Additionally, the EC has maintained the main features concerning the rules on
IPR, exploitation and dissemination of results, for example, relating to ownership of results
(art. 38), requirement to protect, exploit and disseminate results (art. 39-40), and the
access rights (art. 42-45) (EC, 2011b).
From another perspective, the elements which will be streamlined in Horizon 2020 are the
evaluation review procedure (art. 15) (former FP7 redress) (EC, 2010a); selection and
award criteria (art. 14), meaning that the proposals submitted will be evaluated on the
basis of excellence (which is the sole criterion for ERC frontier research actions) (ERC, 2012),
impact, quality and efficiency of the implementation (EC, 2011b); personnel cost of SMEs
owners and natural persons without salary (art. 26) may be charged “on the basis of a
scale of unit cost” (EC, 2011b), this new provision reflects the FP7 simplification decision of
January 2011. As regard to exploitation and/or dissemination of results, the EC has
decided to maintain the possibility to lay down additional obligations to encourage the
exploitation of results “in further research or commercially” by the participant itself or another
legal entity for these purposes (art. 40). These additional obligations can be settled in the GA
(or in the work programme or work plan for any such additional obligations). Concerning the
dissemination through research publications, there is a general principle that “open access
shall apply under the terms and conditions laid down in the grant agreement” (EC, 2011b).
Safeguarding Swiss interests in RfP of Horizon 2020
©SwissCore Page 17
2.4 General main issues
There are numerous elements to be discussed concerning the RfP, but it is possible to
highlight a few of them, which are already receiving special attention in Brussels (e.g. during
informal meetings of representatives of beneficiaries) (IGLO, 2012)8. Here, these issues are
divided in three sections, namely: Legal basis and conflicts with other legislation (2.4.1);
funding rates and cost reimbursement (2.4.2); and IPR (2.4.3).
In this ‘long list’ of topics discussed at European level not all topics are of ‘managerial and
administrative’ interest for CH. However, it is of some relevance to introduce an overview
before establishing a ‘specific list’ of Swiss main issues in the following chapter (3.3).
2.4.1 Legal basis and conflicts with other legislation
(i) Financial regulation (FR): Although the stronger reliance of the RfP on the FR is in line
with the overall regulations, its renewal initially foreseen in 2016 raised concerns among
several beneficiaries (Swiss ones included) due to the legal uncertainty this could create.
However, as the proceedings in Council and EP have progressed, it seems that the FR will be
aligned to Horizon 2020 timeline, i.e. 2014-2020. Nevertheless, the EC should still clearly
indicate which articles of the RfP refer to which articles in the FR.
(ii) Value Added Tax (VAT) (art. 23): The recovery of VAT already now constitutes one of
the biggest issues of errors in the audit reports (together with time recording, employment
status, hourly rate calculation and purpose made working arrangements) (EC, 2012h, p. 4).
Regardless the desirability to recover VAT, the possibility that (non-recoverable) VAT might be
considered eligible in Horizon 2020 may lead to higher economical costs for beneficiaries
recovering it, but also might open up new sources of error. Beneficiaries have requested the
EC to provide clarity, consistency and unambiguity with regard to VAT recoverability (IGLO,
2012a)9.
(iii) State aid rules: “to ensure the effectiveness of public spending and prevent market
distortions such as crowding-out of private funding, creating ineffective market structures or
preserving inefficient firms”, “funding provided by Horizon 2020 should be designed in
accordance with State aid rules” (EC, 2011b, p. 8). EC officials have several times publicly
linked the proposals for the reimbursement rates to overall calculations regarding the State
Aid. It was stated that on average the current proposals do not constitute a problem.
(iv) Cumulative funding (art. 31): The provision of a legal basis for cumulative funding
providing for synergies particularly between Horizon 2020 and the Structural Funds in article
31 is welcomed. The interpretation of the article is not clear however. Moreover, particular
attention is needed for the fact that different funding schemes allow for different
reimbursement levels for the same cost items possibly resulting in unintended instrument
shopping. An explanatory note on the interpretation of this article, particularly vis-à-vis article
55 (al. 8) of the RfP of the Structural Funds (EC, 2011g), which also rules on cumulative
funding, is necessary.
8 This document does not constitute any formal opinion nor publication of IGLO. 9 Idem
Safeguarding Swiss interests in RfP of Horizon 2020
©SwissCore Page 18
2.4.2 Funding rates and cost reimbursement
In general, the discussion on whether the proposals for direct and indirect costs lead to an
increase or loss of participation seems to intensify. One of the possible actions is to encourage
national experts to carry out simple simulations of financial consequences of the proposed
rates for different types of projects, to share and compare their results.
(i) Direct costs: the proposal for the reimbursement of direct costs is intended to simplify
matters. However, the benefits are not clear for the beneficiaries and/or for the EC and its
funding agencies.
(ii) Types of projects (art. 22): The single funding rate for all beneficiaries and activities
within one project clearly concerns simplification. As abovementioned, ‘close to the market’
projects have a lower funding rate (70/20, comparing to 100/20 for frontier research). With
the new reimbursement rates being the same for all types of beneficiaries, they would apply
for an entire project. That means no longer would there be a distinction between non-profit
(e.g. universities) and industry beneficiaries (e.g. SME). A few crucial issues remain unclear.
Should participants expect calls providing for either 100 or 70% or will other percentages be
possible? Most importantly, along which general framework and logic will the EC decide on the
percentage? Projects with an innovation component would thus have a lower reimbursement
rate than pure research projects. This seems inconsistent with the general policy trend to
encourage links between research and innovation. One of the risks is that the proposal delinks
research and innovation instead of coupling them closer.
Moreover, if on the one side some participants (e.g. universities) could rely on private funding
to complement their resources (i.e. cross-funding) for demonstration projects, on the other
side participants are fearful that this sort of financing could endanger the ‘independence’ of
research. Thus, with its current proposal, some participants expect to participate less for not
being able to afford all the costs. There is an evident need for clarification of terminology and
definitions through an overarching framework ensuring that the discussions and the decisions
about the project type (with respective 100 or 70% funding rate) in the Programme
Committees is transparent.
(iii) Indirect costs (art. 24): The discussion on the financial consequences of the single flat
rate of 20% is intensifying rapidly with major stakeholders and beneficiaries pointing out to
both negative financial results and undesired consequences for their accounting systems. The
proposal for the flat rate seems to have an unintended negative impact for coordinators of
projects. One of the possible solutions is to increase this rate (while accepting the
consequence of having a reduced number of projects funded). According to the European
University Association (EUA), a “100%/40% model would provide an acceptable level of
reimbursement while also providing an incentive for the further development of full costing
methodologies” (EUA, 2012, p. 2). Several members states, including NO (Royal Norwegian
Ministry of Education and Research, 2012, p. 10) and UK (UK Higher Education International
Unit, 2012, p. 7), consider important to maintain the full economic costing methodology as an
option for institutions to claim reimbursement of real indirect costs.
(iv) Real costs: Many (private) organisations have heavily invested in the calculation of real
indirect costs as have certain research and education institutions following the generic trend
to full costing. The ‘one-size-fits-all’ of a single flat rate of 20% indirect costs threaten to
jeopardise these results. It seems therefore plausible to affirm that many participants would
like the EC to maintain full-cost-based reimbursement as option.
Safeguarding Swiss interests in RfP of Horizon 2020
©SwissCore Page 19
2.4.2.1 Reporting control and auditing
(i) Timesheets and other administrative reporting: It remains unclear to whether the
financial reporting will continue to stay at 18 months (like in the current FP7) or be reduced to
12 months as stated in the FR.
(ii) Ex-post audits: Acknowledging the authority of both Directorate-General for Budget (DG
Budget) and more importantly the European Court of Auditors (ECA), the deadlines and
frequency of (ex post) audits remain so far largely unclear. A coherent interpretation of rules
between EC officers and auditors and the traceability of officers decisions have to be ensured.
At this stage it is not clear how this will be achieved.
2.4.3 Intellectual property rights
The general principles are the same as in FP7, but the emphasis on open access (art. 38ff) to
research publications has somewhat increased. The strong un-nuanced focus on it seems to
frighten certain types of beneficiaries (i.e. industries that do not publish their results). It
should be clarified for which types of beneficiaries and activities what rules and more
importantly choices apply. The design of the model GA seems crucial in this respect.
2.5 Conclusion
In a broader sense, the RfP the EC has proposed for Horizon 2020 respect the preference
clearly expressed and strongly supported by participants not to have a complete redesign of
the RfP. Indeed, “one of the major sources of concern of stakeholders” was the “lack of
stability of the rules that could lead to disruptions in the implementation process and would
require additional learning effort from participants” (EC, 2011e, p. 16). Instead of such a
‘revolution’, the EC proposal is focused on the stability of the existing rules and any
simplification measure aims to outweigh the costs of its implementation (EC, 2011e, p. 16).
It can be said that the EC proposal for the RfP of Horizon 2020 has been designed in a way
that these rules will most probably not only increase coherence with other EU funding
programmes (e.g. synergies with Structural Funds), but also reduce the existing
administrative burden (Ehler, 2012, pp. 74-77). The proposed simplification measures,
according to the EC, aim to outweigh concerns related particularly to the legal basis and
conflicts with other legislation; funding rates and cost reimbursement; and IPR issues (EC,
2011e, p. 28). This new set of rules remains to a certain extent similar to FP7 rules – and that
is also seen as a form of simplification.
Finally, the EC proposed to extend the scope of the future RfP also to CIP and EIT actions. In
addition to that, there are in the RfP of Horizon 2020 new forms of funding specifically
targeted at innovation coupled with IPR rules that facilitate SME participation.
In the next chapter, the above ‘long list’ of main issues in the RfP will serve as the departing
point when analysing the text of Swiss stakeholders’ position papers and looking at
managerial and administrative interests of the Swiss Government.
Safeguarding Swiss interests in RfP of Horizon 2020
©SwissCore Page 20
3 Towards Swiss managerial and administrative interests
This chapter gives a theoretical perspective on the formation of national consensus10 in policy
formulation (3.1) based on the input/output model of David Easton. Afterwards, the Swiss
stakeholders’ research interests are presented in the proposed RfP of Horizon 2020 (3.2). The
public policy cycle approach of Charles Jones will be discussed (3.3), and applied to my case.
The objective is to understand how the Swiss Government has designed the CH position,
aiming at safeguarding managerial and administrative and research interests of Swiss
beneficiaries in Horizon 2020 (3.3.1). Finally, I provide a description of the decision-making
process in CH (3.4), the Swiss position on Horizon 2020 (3.5) and a conclusion (3.6).
3.1 Formation of national consensus in policy formulation
In March 2012, SER published the Swiss position on Horizon 2020. Hereafter, I analyse how
this position has been designed, based on the approach of David Easton.
To start with, David Easton’s approach (i.e. input/output model) can be mainly summarised
as “the transformation of inputs of demand into outputs of decisions” (EASTON, 1957, p.
400). Relying on this input/output model, (i) I identify the inputs and the forces that shape
and change them; (ii) the process through which they are transformed into outputs, to
describe the general conditions under which such processes can be maintained, and (iii) to
establish the relationship between outputs and succeeding inputs of the system.
Applying Easton’s model, in this research, (i) I identify the inputs that have been given from
Swiss stakeholders regarding the RfP of Horizon 2020; (ii) the process through which these
inputs were transformed into a decision (i.e. the Swiss position), to describe the general
conditions under which the decision-making process is taking place, and (iii) to establish the
relationship between the ‘consensual’ Swiss position and succeeding inputs at the EU level.11
In the study of politics, Easton affirms that one should “view political life as a system of
interrelated activities” (EASTON, 1957). He claims these activities influence the way in which
decisions are formulated and executed. The following formula illustrates his concept:
Figure 1: A simplified model of a political system (EASTON, 1957, p. 384)
10 In this research, ‘consensus’ means reaching balance among inputs of several stakeholders, which have
different interests and needs (e.g. universities and SME). 11 In his model, when Easton makes reference to ‘succeeding inputs of the system’ (EASTON, 1957, p. 386), he
means the inputs in the same political system, i.e. feedbacks. In this research, I also understand ‘succeeding
inputs’ as the Swiss strategy in action (i.e. Swiss inputs) at the European level, once the Swiss position at the
national level has been reached.
Safeguarding Swiss interests in RfP of Horizon 2020
©SwissCore Page 21
In the Swiss case, this model can also be applied. The Swiss research stakeholders and the
implementing agencies provide inputs (illustrated by the arrows below) to SER, which then
compiles the Swiss position, as follows:
Figure 2: Stakeholders inputs to the SER
According to Easton, it is then up to the Government to take the final responsibility for
filtering demands into the ‘political black box’ and providing an output (EASTON, 1965).
However, Easton’s model does not explain how the output is designed. For this purpose, I will
discuss Charles Jones’ public policy cycle approach later in this chapter (section 3.4).
3.2 Swiss stakeholders’ interests
In this sub-section, I provide a summary of the text analysis I have carried out of position
papers of Swiss research institutions. Namely, these institutions are the Rectors’ Conference
of the Swiss Universities (CRUS) (3.2.1), the Rectors’ Conference of the Swiss Universities of
Applied Sciences (KFH) (3.2.2), the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences (3.2.3), the
Commission for Technology and Innovation (CTI) (3.2.4) and the Swiss National Science
Foundation (SNSF) (3.2.5). Their statements were published in response to the Green Paper
Consultation on a Common Strategic Framework for EU Research and Innovation Funding that
took place between February and May 2011 (EC, 2011i).12 The Swiss Government took part in
this consultation and sent to the EC, in May 2011, a full compilation of stakeholders’ replies
(SER, 2011) and also a synthesis document of these replies (SER, 2011a).
To describe the Swiss managerial and administrative interests, I relied on inputs received
during interviews and/or from position of the State Secretariat for Education and Research
(SER) (3.3.1.1), the Federal Office for Professional Education and Technology (OPET)
(3.3.1.2) and the Mission of Switzerland to the European Union (Mission CH EU) (3.3.1.3). I
also consulted the implementing agencies, Euresearch (3.3.2.1) and SwissCore (3.3.2.2).
Through the lens of the RfP, I focused the text analysis and interviews on the issues
enumerated in the ‘long list’ (cf. section 2.4). Hereafter, I also provide a brief description of
the role of the above-mentioned Swiss research stakeholders. The aim is to demonstrate how
these stakeholders communicate their positions to the Swiss Government and in which ways
the Swiss position is defined. I was also interested in how consensus between stakeholders
that have different needs and interests can be achieved during policy formulation.
12 A complete list with responses to the Green Paper from Swiss institutions and individuals is also available
(EC, 2012c).
SER
OPET
Mission CH EU
CRUS
KFH
Swiss
Academies
CTI SNSFSwissCore
Euresearch
FIT domain
Institutions
(e.g. PSI)
Other federal offices
(e.g. SFOE)
Safeguarding Swiss interests in RfP of Horizon 2020
©SwissCore Page 22
3.2.1 Rectors’ Conference of the Swiss Universities (CRUS)
CRUS is a consultative body of Swiss university leaders, which purpose is to handle all
academic and political issues that demand mutual resolutions or joint statements (CRUS,
2012). In fact, CRUS contributed to the position elaborated by SER (the one elaborated in
December 2010), but did not prepare a position paper itself. It did not take part either in the
Green Paper consultation that took place in early 2011.
There is therefore no document sent to SER in the forefront of the Swiss position, rather
CRUS’ input took the form of an oral communication made by CRUS president, Professor
Antonio Loprieno, during a meeting. According to information received from its Secretariat,
CRUS very much welcomed the simplification of the processes and structures of Horizon 2020.
For CRUS, the criterion of selection should exactly be excellence, as stated in the art. 14 of
the proposed RfP (EC, 2011b, p. 16).
3.2.2 Rectors’ Conference of the Swiss Universities of Applied Sciences (KFH)
KFH encompasses the rectors of the eight Universities of Applied Sciences (UAS) which are
acknowledged by the Swiss Confederation. The Conference was established in 1999 in order
to represent the interests of the UAS when dealing with the Confederation, the cantons and
other institutions in charge of education and research policy as well as the public in general
(KFH, 2012).
In its position paper of May 2011, KFH highlighted that the RfP should be kept as simple and
as understandable as possible (KFH, 2011, p. 3). It proposed to include VAT as an eligible
cost in EU funded projects in order to decrease administrative work. Moreover, it
recommended the EC to guarantee the harmonisation of the rules and instruments for all
financed and co-financed programmes at the European level (KFH, 2011, p. 2).
KFH advised the EC to simplify the administrative burden and the negotiation process. It
requested the EC to simplify and ease the administrative burden of the coordinator and fix the
rate of exchange when signing the contract (to avoid financial issues due to currency
fluctuations) (Idem).
KFH argued that IPR should be handled in a way that research institutions, respectively the
UAS, keep freedom to continue research, to publish (conditions to be negotiated) and to
integrate research results in the study courses. According to its position paper, the
commercialisation should be the task of the industries. In general, open access publishing and
open source software should be promoted (KFH, 2011, p. 5).
3.2.3 Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences
The Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences are an organisation associating the Swiss Academy
of Sciences (SCNAT), the Swiss Academy of Humanities and Social Sciences (SAHS), the
Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences (SAMS), the Swiss Academy of Engineering Sciences
(SATW) as well as the two centres of excellence TA-SWISS (Technology Assessment) and the
foundation Science et Cité (Science and City). Their collaboration focuses on promoting
scientific careers and education, sustainable use of limited resources, societal impact of new
Safeguarding Swiss interests in RfP of Horizon 2020
©SwissCore Page 23
scientific findings and technologies as well as health care system in flux (Swiss Academies of
Arts and Sciences, 2012).
The Swiss Academies claimed, in its position paper of March 2011, that it is important to allow
maximum possible freedom to the science community to do research and to safeguard the
rights of researchers to publish results freely to make them publicly available (Swiss
Academies of Arts and Sciences, 2011, p. 2). The Swiss Academies also pointed out that
sharing results is a key element in furthering the development of both science and society,
and they therefore support the 2003 ‘Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the
Sciences and Humanities’ (Max Planck Society, 2003). In this regard, the Swiss Academies
advocated a solution whereby means for open access measures would be comprised in
funding for research projects (Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences, 2011).
3.2.4 Commission for Technology and Innovation (CTI)
CTI is the Swiss government agency for innovation promotion. It designs, implements,
incorporates and runs instruments of knowledge and technology transfer, such as support of
joint university-industry projects and start-ups (CTI, 2012). In its position paper of April
2011, CTI stated that rules and funding of any projects or initiatives within Horizon 2020 must
be exclusively excellence-based, meaning that its activities should not be tailored to address
cohesion (CTI, 2011, p. 1). CTI stated that it could, as the past has shown, severely
jeopardise the innovation performance of a consortium. Horizon 2020 should restrict new
funding and coordination instruments to those that clearly enhance innovation potential, thus
preventing overlaps and EU-internal competition and conflicts. Keeping structures as simple
and clear as possible for the ‘customers’ is of key importance, thereby minimising costly and
distorting administrative management activities (CTI, 2011, p. 2).
From CTI’s perspective, IPR policy should respect both the need of implementation partners to
proceed efficiently and with adequate protection to exploit findings of joint projects and create
commercial value; and the potential of the academic partners to further pursue issues and
create other, separate attractive innovation opportunities. CTI concluded that efforts should
be supported to identify and share best practices in innovative cooperation and
communication, in particular among diverse partners (CTI, 2011, p. 3).
3.2.5 Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF)
SNSF is the most important Swiss institution promoting scientific research. As mandated by
the Swiss Federal government, it supports research projects in all disciplines, from philosophy
and biology to the nanosciences and medicine. SNSF has a strategic role in the decision-
making process leading to the Swiss position. It includes all of its internal departments when
bringing inputs requested by SER and underlines the complementarity of Swiss and European
instruments in research (SNSF, 2012).
When preparing its position paper, SNSF reiterated the importance of excellence as granting
criterion and kept in mind Swiss researchers’ interests. On an informal basis, the Contact
Office for European Research, Innovation and Education of the SNSF, SER and OPET in
Brussels (SwissCore) followed the design of the Swiss Government position together with the
Science and Technology Counsellor of the Mission CH EU (both eventually commenting on the
draft position) and Euresearch (SER, 2010a). Thereafter, SNSF proceeded to a final revision,
drawing attention to the inputs received. The National Research Council of SNSF, composed of
Safeguarding Swiss interests in RfP of Horizon 2020
©SwissCore Page 24
the best scientists in CH, most of whom are based at Swiss universities, serves as well to
legitimise SNSF’s views and positions (SNSF, 2008, p. 1).
Following these steps, SNSF shared its position paper with authorities and decision makers,
both at Swiss and European level, for instance, SER, Science Europe and EC. SNSF stressed
the independence of its position paper, meaning that the Swiss Government does not regulate
the content in the draft or final version of its position papers. SNSF highlighted the good
collaboration and constant exchange between SNSF and SER.
In its position paper of March 2011, SNSF reiterated the need for further simplification of
rules and guidelines in order to make sure Horizon 2020 will be successful (SNSF, 2011, p. 3).
It advocated that the rules should remain valid for the entire duration of the project term and
be consistent over all funding instruments. Moreover, the single registration facility should be
enlarged, national accounting systems ex ante certified and full costing ensured (SNSF, 2011,
p. 3). Likewise, SNSF concluded that attention and effort should be dedicated towards
achieving a good balance of power between academia, the state and business and industries.
In a nutshell, following the text analysis of the above-listed Swiss stakeholders’ position
papers, the skeleton of their inputs with regard to the RfP of Horizon 2020 include the
following:
(i) the request for the stability of the rules, i.e. that they remain valid for the entire duration
of projects and be consistent over all funding instruments;
(ii) VAT recoverability should be included as an eligible cost in EU funded projects;
(iii) Structural Funds and Cohesion funding instruments should not be mixed with Horizon
2020;
(iv) reimbursement of full indirect costs; and
(v) balance of power between academia, the state and business and industries, meaning that
IPR policy should embrace freedom to the science community to do research and to publish
results freely, but also adequate protection for business partners to exploit findings of joint
projects and create commercial value.
3.3 Policy making process in the Swiss System
The role of the Swiss Government and the Swiss managerial and administrative interests
(3.3.1), as well as the mission of its implementing agencies (3.3.2) is observed hereafter.
3.3.1 Swiss managerial and administrative interests
Following Easton’s model, it can be affirmed that the output – i.e. a political decision or policy
(EASTON, 1957, p. 395), in this case, the ‘Swiss position on Horizon 2020’ – is delivered by
SER. Thereafter, the Mission CH EU expresses it in Brussels.
3.3.1.1 State Secretariat for Education and Research (SER)
Within the Federal Department of Home Affairs, SER is the federal government’s authority for
national and international matters concerning general and university education, research and
space (SER, 2012a). SER is the responsible governmental service regarding the participation
of CH in Horizon 2020 and is therefore in charge of the publication of the Swiss position. SER
represents CH in the European Programme Management Committees (PMC), where work
Safeguarding Swiss interests in RfP of Horizon 2020
©SwissCore Page 25
programmes and calls for tenders are discussed and FP evaluation procedures are monitored.
As an AC, CH has observer status on these committees and is represented by programme
delegates from SER (SER, 2012b). In addition, SER invited other experts from the Federal
Administration into its national advisory group that it has created for each thematic area. On
the national level, the Work Programme accompanying structure is therefore composed of a
delegation, a support group and a consultation group.
SER organised the preparatory meetings and wrote the Swiss positions. As it can be observed
in the Appendix II of this research, SER provided the EC with the following documents:
• December 2010: Swiss General Considerations for FP8 (SER, 2010a), prior to the
Green Paper Consultation;
• May 2011: Full Compilation of stakeholders’ replies to the Green Paper Consultation
(SER, 2011)
• May 2011: Synthesis of Swiss Responses to the Green Paper Consultation (SER,
2011a)
• March 2012: Swiss position on Horizon 2020 (SER, 2012)
In a first step, SER prepared a draft position paper (or a questionnaire according to the
situation), bringing in its own experience from the Programme Committees and from the
national support groups. SER then submitted this document for comment and input to other
stakeholders. These Experts provided inputs based on the interests and needs of the Swiss
science and research community. Finally, SER translated the inputs received in a way that
they could be useful to the EC. In other words, the appropriate format consisted of short
propositions and direct recommendations promptly ready to be used as amendments. It is
worth to note that SER respects the heterogeneous research federalism in CH’s research
landscape and strive to find a common and balanced position.
Attentive that the Swiss position maintains its coherence, SER worked in a way that it needed
to exclude as few as possible inputs coming from different stakeholders, with different needs
and perspectives. Internally, SER prepared a consolidated draft opinion with all the inputs
received and sent it to all participants so that they could edit the document with their views
and positions. The process was repeated once or twice to reach balance among different
inputs.
To write the Swiss position, including the paragraphs on the RfP, SER has consulted the
stakeholders mentioned in ‘Figure 2’ (section 3.1).
3.3.1.2 Federal Office for Professional Education and Technology (OPET)
OPET is the federal governmental service responsible for upper-secondary level vocational
education and training (VET), tertiary-level professional education and training (PET),
universities of applied sciences and innovation. Through its activities, OPET helps to ensure
that the Swiss VET/PET system produces qualified workers and that CH remains an appealing
and innovative location for both economic activities and education. OPET is part of the Federal
Department of Economic Affairs (OPET, 2012).
As stated before, SER and OPET work in collaboration. The role of OPET is to make the FP
accessible to industries and SME and thus promote innovation on a global basis. To design its
individual position, OPET considered the interests of its industry/SME stakeholders and
summarised them in a consolidated paper. OPET underlined that there is no written process
Safeguarding Swiss interests in RfP of Horizon 2020
©SwissCore Page 26
on how to solve conflicts between stakeholders and the Government. In general, the informal
process leads to a common denomination, i.e. there is consensus among the parts involved in
the discussions. It can be said that there are synergies between SER, OPET and research
stakeholders. While SER concentrated on basic research, OPET brought inputs within the
innovation context from industries and SME.
In its position, published in April 2011, OPET stressed, for instance, the need to emphasise
excellence in research and innovation (OPET, 2011, p. 2). Likewise, in order to convince
industry players with high innovation potential to take part in the FP, OPET stated that
simplification of the available instruments is essential and that the rules and options should be
reduced to an absolute minimum (OPET, 2011, p. 4). Regarding IPR and licence agreements,
OPET affirmed that common IPR rules should not be implemented, as SME could be put at
disadvantage by restrictive IPR/licence agreements. Thus, OPET recommended the EC to treat
each case and project in a different way (OPET, 2011, p. 8).
3.3.1.3 Mission of Switzerland to the European Union (Mission CH EU)
The Mission CH EU is the Swiss diplomatic representation to the EU. It follows the policy
formulation in Brussels and informs the Swiss Government on the future programmes from
the perspective of CH as a whole and of its status/collaboration within these programmes or
initiatives in particular (FDFA, 2012). It represents moreover the Swiss interests in this
respect, analyses developments in EU policy and facilitates contact between representatives
of CH and the EU. The Mission CH EU maintains regular contact with the EU institutions, MS
representations and, more broadly, civil society. Its staff prepare and coordinate visits by
representatives of the Federal Administration to Brussels and also participate in delegations
for bilateral negotiations with the EU (FDFA, 2012).
In the EC proposals for Horizon 2020, the Mission CH EU monitored closely the articles which
made reference to AC, including for instance the conditions for participation, eligibility for
funding and the RfP. Moreover, the Mission CH EU monitored the evaluation criteria in
research programmes, as for CH excellence should be the sole criterion in research projects,
while funds applied for cohesion should be clearly divided and identified as so.
Another role of the Mission CH EU is to keep track on the FP timeline and on the interests of
CH. The Mission CH EU contributed therefore to SER’s position on Horizon 2020 giving support
regarding the appropriate issues to be addressed and the recommended format of the Swiss
position in accordance with the needs of the EC. The Mission CH EU could inform SER whether
a consultation would be appropriate in light of the agenda of the EC and its developments. It
also keeps the networking with the right stakeholders, in particular with other AC and key MS.
The Mission identifies moreover AC and MS with similar positions and offer additional CH
support to reinforce them at the EU institutions. The Mission CH EU sent the current Swiss
position to the Danish presidency of the EU, EC, EP and rapporteurs together with a covering
letter.
3.3.2 Implementing agencies
The implementing agencies are providers of information and delivers of content. They do not
have an individual position, but play an important role together with the Swiss Government
and research stakeholders to increase Swiss researchers and companies’ success in European
RTD programmes.
Safeguarding Swiss interests in RfP of Horizon 2020
©SwissCore Page 27
3.3.2.1 Euresearch
As a private provider of services, mandated by SER and OPET, Euresearch informs and
advises universities, research centres, industry and Swiss SME on the participation in
European research and development programmes and facilitates innovation partnerships in
Europe. Its network is composed of a Head Office in Berne and Regional Offices in each
University (for instance, at the University of Geneva) and (Swiss) Federal Institutes of
Technology (Euresearch, 2012a).
Euresearch does not formally participate in the discussions about the framework programmes.
Once the programmes are decided, Euresearch helps researches to find the right European
opportunities in which they could take part. According to the Euresearch Handbook, its
mission is to “provide targeted information, expert advise and hands on support in all phases
of applying for and managing European projects and technological cooperation”. (Euresearch,
2012, p. 1).
However, Euresearch provided SER with oral inputs to the official position (for instance, as it
did during the Green Paper Consultation on a Common Strategic Framework for EU Research
and Innovation Funding). These exchanges are made more on a personal basis. The added-
value of Euresearch is client orientation, assistance at different stages, but it has also an
important role in (informally) bringing researchers’ and SME’s first-hand inputs to SER.
3.3.2.2 SwissCore
SwissCore is the Contact Office for European Research, Innovation and Education of the
SNSF, SER and OPET in Brussels and a partner of Euresearch (SER, 2012b). It acts as an
information, training and networking platform for Swiss and European research, innovation
and education interests and informally represents the Swiss research and education
community towards EU institutions and Brussels-based interest groups. SwissCore is a non-
profit service provider for researchers, managers, administrators and policy-makers from both
the public and the private sector (SwissCore, 2012a).
In brief, SwissCore provides high-quality information to the Swiss Government and RTD
stakeholders by writing articles, infomails, notes, reports and by publishing the Synopsis
newsletter (SwissCore, 2012b). Its staff answers questions, gives presentations and speeches
and participates in and organises meetings and events. (SwissCore, 2012, pp. 14-15) SER
stressed that during the SwissCore Seminars in Brussels informal exchanges take place
between Swiss and European stakeholders. These activities contribute therefore to the
preparation of the Swiss position. Indeed, at the SwissCore Research Seminar in January
2012 all actors agreed to hand in a Swiss position to Brussels.
The role of SwissCore is also to influence the discussions very early from the Swiss point of
view. SwissCore informs the network about developments in EU RTD, Education and
Innovation programmes which are of potential interest for Swiss researchers and companies.
(Euresearch, 2012, p. 3).
Now that I have shown how the positions are established, I will describe in more details the
Swiss decision-making process leading to the CH position on the RfP of Horizon 2020.
Safeguarding Swiss interests in RfP of Horizon 2020
©SwissCore Page 28
3.4 Decision-making process
Policy should be understood as a cycle, i.e. “a logical sequence of recurring events”, claimed
Charles Jones (JONES, 1984). His approach is somehow complementary to Easton’s model.
Applying Jones’ concept, the ‘black box’ can be opened and allow to investigate the process
through which policy is formulated. In Jones’ policy cycle the sequential flow involves agenda
setting, formulation and implementation of a public policy (JONES, 1984).13
In the agenda-setting phase, problems are defined and issues are raised. For instance, in this
study case, the problem to which the Swiss Government and stakeholders are faced is how to
safeguard the Swiss interests in the RfP of Horizon 2020. Once the issues are on the table,
the Swiss Government determined which items brought into the agenda (i.e. inputs) would be
adopted into its final decision (i.e. the output). As showed, the Mission CH EU in Brussels is
responsible to a large extent to communicate the Swiss decision at the EU level.
In CH, the process to safeguard Swiss interests in the RfP of Horizon 2020 started back in
2010 (SER, 2010a). SER, which is in charge of the Swiss association to FP7, is also
responsible for the association of CH to Horizon 2020. For this purpose, there is a ‘project
team’ charged with the organisation of the decision-making process related to Horizon 2020.
The core group of this ‘team project’ is SER, OPET, the Mission CH EU, the Integration Office
(IO) and the Directorate of Public International Law (DPIL). Other Federal Departments and
agencies also are included in the project organisation. For instance, Euresearch, SwissCore,
the General Secretariat of Home Affairs, the Federal Offices of Justice, Energy, Agriculture and
Social Insurance, the Conference of cantonal Ministers of Education, ch Stiftung and even
contact persons from the EC.
In the first round, in order to assess the Swiss research interests, the Swiss Government
prepared a Swiss position which was consulted with the stakeholders in September 2010.
Based on this consultation, SER published a non-paper in December of the same year (SER,
2010a).
Following EC’s publication of the Green Paper Consultation on a Common Strategic Framework
for EU Research and Innovation Funding in February 2011, SER conducted a second round
of consultation with Swiss stakeholders, which started in March 2011 and were concluded with
a full compilation of stakeholders’ replies (SER, 2011) and a synthesis of Swiss responses to
the consultation (SER, 2011a), both published in May 2011.
After the publication of the proposals for Horizon 2020 in November 2011, SER conducted a
third round of consultation with Swiss stakeholders in February 2012 and published its final
position on Horizon 2020 in March of the same year (SER, 2012).
In all cases, SER helped disseminating these positions by presenting them at national and
international workshops and conferences, such as the High Level Roundtable of Swiss
stakeholders in presence of General-Director Robert-Jan Smits, the ERA Platform, where all
national administration actors are involved, and a trilateral platform conference DE-AT-CH.
Such actions helped to increase awareness and sensibility of other countries to the Swiss
positions.
13 Although budget and evaluation are also part of Jones’ approach, I do not further analyse them in detail in
this study as it would go beyond my objective, which is clearly to understand the transformation of inputs into
the official Swiss position (i.e. decision as an output).
Safeguarding Swiss interests in RfP of Horizon 2020
©SwissCore Page 29
3.5 Swiss position on RfP
The Swiss position, as published by SER in March 2012, was structured on the following core
elements regarding the RfP of Horizon 2020 (SER, 2012):
(i) the stronger reliance of the RfP on the EU’s FR could create some legal uncertainty (as a
new regulation was initially foreseen for 2016). CH was concerned that it could further apart
participants and AC from the daily business of Horizon 2020;
(ii) CH welcomed the inclusion of (non-recoverable) VAT among the eligible costs;
(iii) CH also welcomed the unification of reimbursement rates for direct and indirect costs, but
advocated that the 20% flat rate for indirect costs may create serious problems for research
and other institutions with a high overhead – for instance, Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich (ETHZ) and École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL);
(iv) CH welcomed the distinction between two funding rates depending on the proximity of a
project to the market. However, it considers a 70% support rate is too high for big
companies, which are in principle more able to finance a market-driven project (risk of
windfall gain). On the other hand, this 70% could lead to a funding gap for research financed
with public funds. Overall, CH claims that the overall logic as well as the instance of decision
of when to apply 70 or 100% should be clear before projects are submitted.
(v) CH finally welcomed the continued flexibility of IPR rules, but requests more clarification
on its guidelines.
3.6 Conclusion
I have observed that the Swiss Government is acting as gatekeeper, filtering research
stakeholders’ inputs. Indeed, the list of issues became shorter at every stage of the process.
Therefore, Easton’s and Jones’ approaches could be applied in a meaningful way to the Swiss
case. There are inputs of demands, translated into output of decision (according to Easton
model) and agenda setting and follow-up efforts (i.e. feedback efforts) (related to Jones
model).
In essence, plural interests are filtered by the SER in several rounds of consultation and
translated into the final Swiss positions. There are efforts (not only from SER, but also from
stakeholders) to achieve balance among different inputs from academia, business and
industries. For instance, before the Swiss position was communicated to Brussels, SER sent it
to all Swiss participants so that they could edit the document with their own views and
positions. Furthermore, it is worth to note that the process is not closed, i.e. constituents and
stakeholders can send their own position papers to the European institutions, if so they wish.
In the next section, I describe if and by which means CH can bring its message to EP and
Council, from the European level perspective.
Safeguarding Swiss interests in RfP of Horizon 2020
©SwissCore Page 30
4 Positions of Council and EP
Following the conclusions on chapter 2, which brings details on what the EC has proposed for
the RfP of Horizon 2020, this section provides information on the process of adoption of the
EC proposal, i.e. the ‘ordinary legislative procedure’, according to the TFEU (4.1). In addition,
to further understand all three institutions involved in the EU decision-making process, I
elaborate briefly on the roles played therein by and the relevant positions of EP (4.2) and
Council (4.3).
4.1 Ordinary legislative procedure (former co-decision procedure)
In line with the Article 294 of the TFEU, “where reference is made in the Treaties to the
ordinary legislative procedure for the adoption of an act” (EU, 2008, p. 127) a specific
procedure shall apply. The detailed ‘ordinary legislative procedure’ (formerly known as ‘co-
decision’) for adoption of an act (EP, 2012, p. 8) is described in the Appendix I. But, the
procedure below, which is informal and quicker, is often applied in practice and will most
probably also be applied for the RfP (EC, 2011h):
1. The EC proposes a text.
2. The Council working groups discuss it.
3. The EP specialised committees and later the plenary discuss it.
4. Once both Council and EP have taken a position on the text, a trialogue between EC, EP
and Council starts until final agreement is reached.
5. Council and EP decide on the final proposal.
The two diagrams below illustrate it:
Figure 3: The ‘ordinary legislative procedure’ (formerly known as co-decision)
The TFEU, which entered into force in December 2009, has significantly extended the co-
decision procedure giving a central role to the EP in the European legislative process. In brief,
the EC proposed legislation will only enter into force in case there is agreement between the
two institutions, i.e. Council and EP. Therefore, MS Permanent Representations and Council
work at early stages with EP. Intensive communication is one of their priorities to have
HORIZON 2020
Safeguarding Swiss interests in RfP of Horizon 2020
©SwissCore Page 31
agreements. Denmark, which hold the Presidency of the Council in the first half of 2012, had
a fundamental role in this respect.14
It is worth to highlight that due to the long time it would take, the ordinary legislative
procedure, scheme detailed in this section, but also illustrated in a chart flow in Appendix I, is
not linearly followed by the European institutions. Instead, informal discussions play a key
role along the process, i.e. the involved parts work on informal agreements quite early in
order to facilitate and shorten time of adoption of the proposed legislation. It is the case for
Horizon 2020 and its RfP.
4.2 European Parliament
The EP is the only directly-elected body of the EU, currently with 754 members, which are
known as Members of the European Parliament (MEP). The EP represents the citizens and
most of its in-depth work is done in specialised committees that prepare reports that will later
be voted on in a plenary session. (EP, 2012a). When it started the deliberations on Horizon
2020, the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy Committee (ITRE), responsible for
preparing the position of the EP on the proposals of the EC, appointed a) Spanish MEP Teresa
Madurell from the group of Socialists and Democrats (S&D) as the rapporteur on the overall
proposal for a regulation setting up Horizon 2020, which deals with the general objectives,
structure and budget; b) German MEP Christian Ehler from the European People’s Party (EPP)
as rapporteur on the proposed RfP of Horizon 2020; and c) Portuguese MEP Maria da Graça
Carvalho from the EPP, as the rapporteur on the Specific Programme Implementing Horizon
2020.
In general, when the draft reports are ready, they are discussed and amended within the
relevant parliamentary committee, then debated in plenary session, where they are adopted
by a simple majority (EC, 2012e). For the above-mentioned reports, in particular, several
issues have been raised by the EP and are currently under discussion in the ITRE Committee.
They concern, for instance, funding rates, the synergies with structural funds, the overall
balance of the proposal, the precise implementation of the RfP and the uptake of R&D results.
In his report, Ehler broadly welcomed the EC proposal on the RfP as an important step
forward. He acclaimed the broader acceptance of beneficiaries’ usual accounting practices;
single set of rules applying to the funding of all actions undertaken by participants under
H2020; reduced requirements in terms of time-recording systems; and the inclusion of Value-
Added Tax (VAT) as eligible costs (Ehler, 2012, p. 73).
Ehler criticised, however, many vague formulations in the EC proposal. His concerns include:
lack of possibility of claiming reimbursement of indirect costs on the basis of actual costs;
single funding rate that does not take the specific cost structures of different participants into
account, thereby leading to inefficient and disproportionate funding (especially in close to
market activities) and an increased average reimbursement level per project in comparison to
FP7; unassertive and limited acceptance of the beneficiaries’ usual accounting practices;
existence of a general escape clause from the single set of rules applying to all types of
funding bodies; extensive flexibility of the proposed rules, which leaves far too many
important decisions to be made at work programme level; and no substantial improvement in
shortening the average ‘time to grant’ (Ehler, 2012, p. 73).
14 Following the Danish, Cyprus Presidency of the Council takes place from 1st July to 31 December 2012.
Safeguarding Swiss interests in RfP of Horizon 2020
©SwissCore Page 32
Ehler proposed the reintroduction of an option for reimbursement of real indirect costs for all
types of participants, based on their usual accounting practices. He also proposed to
differentiate the reimbursement rate for direct costs not only by type of activity (i.e. research
or innovation), as currently foreseen, but also by method of cost calculation and type of
participant. The following table15 summarises the reimbursement rates proposed by Ehler:
Type of activitity Method of cost calculation Type of Participant
University/RTO/other SME Industry
R&D direct costs+flat rate 100+20% 100+20% 70+20%
full costs 70% 70% 70%
Close-to-Market direct costs+flat rate 100+20% 70+20% 30+20%
full costs 70% 50% 35%
During debates at the EP, some MEPs expressed concerns about Ehler’s proposal stating that
it would reintroduce complexity in the RfP. He proposed moreover the EC to set an explicit
limit of six months for the ‘time to grant’ in order to address the real needs of industry
participants. Ehler further proposed more clarification on certain aspects regarding IPR,
additional dissemination and exploitation obligations, as well as on the concept of ‘open
access’. The rapporteur also draw attention to potential negative effects of 70/20
reimbursement rate for close-to-market activities (e.g. demonstrating, testing and piloting)
(Ehler, 2012, p. 75).
The draft reports of the EP with amendments should be translated during summer 2012 (all
the rapporteurs write in English). The vote in ITRE will most likely take place in October or
November, after which informal negotiations could start between the EP and Council.
4.3 Council
The Council consists of a representative of each MS at ministerial level. The preparatory work
at the Council runs concurrently with the EP’s activity, but although the Council and the EP
are encouraged to exchange information on progress and on timetables of the co-decision
negotiations (EU, 2007), the Council may only formally adopt a position after the EP has
formally acted.
The MS holding the six-monthly presidency of the Council is responsible to organise and to
chair working groups made up of experts from other MS to prepare the Council position. As
afore-mentioned, Denmark hold the responsibility during the first semester of 2012.
Moreover, the Committee of Permanent Representatives (COREPER), which prepares every
Council decision taken at Ministerial level, plays a key role in the coordination of these
working groups.
While the proposals for new legislation are prepared by the EC, the main task of the Council,
together with EP, is to pass EU legislation. In general, the Council takes its decisions by
qualified majority, according to art.16(3) of the TFEU (EU, 2008). But, decisions on issues
such as structural and fiscal policy, the common trade policy or asylum and immigration are
taken unanimously.
During the last Competitiveness Council under the Danish presidency of the Council on 31
May 2012, a ‘partial general approach’ on the regulation establishing Horizon 2020 was
15 Prepared by Neth-ER (Neth-ER, 2012).
Safeguarding Swiss interests in RfP of Horizon 2020
©SwissCore Page 33
reached, this means an agreement on the structure without taking neither the budget nor the
RfP into account (Council, 2012, p. 2). The MS generally welcomed the proposal of the EC,
particularly with regard to the better linking of research and innovation and the overall
simplified structure.
Although the RfP did not make part of the partial general approach, the Council Research
Working Party (RECH WG) has examined the EC’s proposal on the RfP and the Specific
Programme. In general, most delegations led by the Danish presidency of the Council have
welcomed the EC proposal on the RfP, nevertheless some issues have been raised during the
discussions. For instance, the need for a dedicated SME instrument within Horizon 2020
causes a division of opinions. But, particularly the proposed funding for single companies
within the proposed dedicated SME instruments is viewed as not delivering enough European
added value.
The need for exact wording for delineation between research and innovation projects as well
as for the respective funding levels of 100 and 70% of the direct costs was underlined. The
proposed flat rate for the indirect costs (20% of direct costs) was considered too low by
several delegations and the abolition of the real cost option is considered as a setback rather
than simplification. As regard the ownership of results, delegations have asked for
clarifications about the joint ownership provisions.
Also, by December 2012, when both positions on Horizon 2020 are planned to be clear, the
informal discussions between the EP and the Council will start until final agreement on
Horizon 2020 is reached possibly around Summer 2013 (EC, 2011h). Hereafter, I elaborate
on the possible positions of the Council (DE, UK and NL) and Norway. However, as detailed
Council negotiations on the RfP have not yet commenced, the following sections should not be
taken as formal positions.
4.3.1 Germany
As the Council did not start the formal negotiations on the RfP yet, there is still much
discussion under progress inside the German government. For this reason, the current
analysis is based on an official document lately released that clarifies some of this research
questions. On this basis:
(i) there is no official comment regarding the reliance of the RfP on the FR.
(ii) there is no official position on the inclusion of (non-recoverable) VAT in the eligible costs.
(iii) regarding proposed simplified funding rate that covers up to 100% of the direct costs of a
project and is combined with a lump-sum 20% reimbursement of indirect costs, the German
Federal Government ‘requests that an exception should be made for participating public
research institutions and universities by giving them the option of retaining full costing if
specific criteria are fulfilled’ (Cabinet of Germany, 2012, p. 5).
(iv) DE supports efforts to increase SME participation in Horizon 2020 through collaborations
with other partners, and particularly from the scientific community, but ‘the market-related
funding (e.g. of demonstration projects and pre-commercial public procurement) proposed in
Horizon 2020 must be strictly limited to thematic areas where market forces are not sufficient’
(Cabinet of Germany, 2012, p. 6).
(v) there is no official position yet on IPR rules.
Safeguarding Swiss interests in RfP of Horizon 2020
©SwissCore Page 34
4.3.2 United Kingdom
As above-mentioned, the UK does not yet have a formal position on the issues related to the
RfP of Horizon 2020. However, it is possible to set out its likely position so far:
(i) the UK does not see the stronger reliance of the RfP on the EU’s FR as a major issue, as
the RfP have always relied on the FR. It reinforces moreover a basic principle of good law-
making that provisions should not be repeated in multiple pieces of legislation. However, the
UK shares some concerns that participants may be confused by the separate legal basis. As
CH, the UK will insist on clear guidance to be produced.
(ii) the UK welcomes the inclusion of (non-recoverable) VAT among the eligible costs.
(iii) As CH, the English Government welcomes the unification of reimbursement rates for
direct and indirect costs. The UK will moreover push for an option for institutions to reclaim
indirect costs on the basis of actual costs incurred (with a correspondingly lower
reimbursement rate for direct costs).
(iv) Concerning the funding rates, the UK shares some concerns about the practical impact
the 70% rate will have on industry participation, and on the means by which the EC will
determine whether the 70% or 100% rate should apply to a given project. to determine its
position, the UK will request the EC to produce more robust evidence to support the 70%
rate. This is also a common point with the CH position.
(v) The UK also supports continued flexibility of IPR rules and expects the EC to produce
clearer guidance for participants on this matter.
4.3.3 Netherlands
In a report (not an official position) sent to the EP, the Dutch Government expressed its
opinion in some of the issues on the RfP analysed in this research (Tweede Kamer der Staten-
Generaal, 2011).
(i) there is no official position concerning the stronger reliance of the RfP on the FR.
(ii) as CH, the NL also supports the inclusion of (non-recoverable) VAT in the eligible costs.
(iii) regarding the reimbursement rates for direct and indirect costs, the NL is in favour of
maintaining an option for claiming full indirect costs. (Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal,
2011, p. 20)
(iv) The NL is in favour of a lower rate for direct costs (current set as 70%) for close to the
market activities. And, as stated ‘the closer the activities are to the market, the lower the
subsidy percentage ought to be (irrespective of whether it is a large company, SME or
research organization).
(v) the Dutch Government has not made a statement on IPR rules so far.
4.4 Norway
There are no Norwegian official positions on the RfP of Horizon 2020 alone. As most official
inputs, the Norwegian inputs to the EU cover the aspects of Horizon 2020 proposal that are
considered most important, and include comments also on the RfP. As is the case in CH,
Norwegian inputs have been established on the basis of national consultations. It is worth to
point that NO is also an AC, as CH, to the FP and the main Norwegian economic activities such
as petroleum and gas do not have a directly corresponding research activity in FP7. Marine
research, which is important to NO, is a cross-cutting priority in the ‘Cooperation’ programme
Safeguarding Swiss interests in RfP of Horizon 2020
©SwissCore Page 35
in FP7. An evaluation of NO’s participation in Sixth Framework Programme for Research and
Technological Development (FP6) and the first two years of FP7 pointed to a need to
strengthen participation of major Norwegian companies (e.g. Telenor, telecommunications,
and Statoil, oil and gas) in the FP. The main group of Norwegian actors participating in the FP
is actually research institutes, followed by SMEs and universities, and with SINTEF as a major
participant (SINTEF, 2012). The institute sector has made a number of inputs related to the
RfP, i.e. on the background of FP6-audits. The evaluation pointed out that there is a strong
need for simplification in the FPs. This was identified as a key condition for a better Norwegian
utilization of the FPs, including increased participation from industry.
However, one can still state that the possible Norwegian position on the issues discussed on
this research are the following:
(i) regarding the stronger reliance of the RfP on the EU’s FR, the Norwegian view, without
being a very explicit official position, is that the it could lead to further simplification, and
therefore is viewed positively;
(ii) as CH, NO welcomes the inclusion of (non-recoverable) VAT among the eligible costs
(Royal Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2012, p. 11);
(iii) also, NO considers important to retain the option of full-costing as the basis for
reimbursement and states that ‘a flat reimbursement rate of 20% will lead to reduced
funding’. Therefore, ‘the reimbursement rate for indirect costs should be increased’ (Royal
Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2012, pp. 10-11);
(iv) regarding the different reimbursement rates, there is no official Norwegian position.
However, NO proposed that ‘the types of activities to be supported by grants and by loans
respectively should be clarified’, also ‘the division of responsibility between Horizon 2020,
national funding sources and capital markets should be clarified’. It seems moreover that NO
is concerned about automatic support for innovation following a research project. It has
recommended the EC to protect the grant budgets from the substantial costs represented by
close-to-the-market activities (Royal Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2012, p.
5).
(v) NO welcomes the promotion of open access. It proposed that ‘Horizon 2020 should
express an intention to implement mandatory open access to scientific articles funded by the
programme, if the open access pilot in FP7 turns out to be successful’ (Royal Norwegian
Ministry of Education and Research, 2012, p. 15).
4.5 Conclusion
Taking into account the partial general approach reached by the Danish presidency, the
discussions in EP and the reaction of the EC on the Danish compromise so far, I can provide
an overview of the probable evolution of the text hereafter.
First of all, Council, EP and EC agree on the most important elements of Horizon 2020. That
said, some differences remain. Regarding the RfP, both the EP and the RECH WP welcomed
the RfP’s overall simplification, but strongly criticised the proposition of the EC on the
reimbursement mechanisms. They agree that the 20% flat rate for the indirect costs is too
low and does not reward organisations that moved to full costing. In this context, the EC
points out the importance of the flat rates within the simplification process, but admits that
there is a need for further reviewing the funding models. The Council should release its final
conclusions on the RfP in October 2012, but it is likely that it will follow the recommendations
of the RECH WP. Modifications in the funding rules can be therefore expected. The Cypriot
Safeguarding Swiss interests in RfP of Horizon 2020
©SwissCore Page 36
presidency aims at reaching partial general approach on the RfP during the Competitiveness
Council on 10 October.
As the discussions progressed in Brussels, there is less room for concern regarding the closer
reliance of the RfP on the FR, as the EC will most probably align the renewal of the FR to the
duration of Horizon 2020 (2014-2020). However, the EC should yet define which articles of
the RfP refer to which articles in the FR. There seems to be moreover a clear common position
that the inclusion of VAT among the eligible costs is positive. CH has noted that the 20%
proposed flat rate for indirect costs seems to be too low and may be harmful for participation.
There is a general agreement on this as a real issue and DE, UK, NL and NO have proposed to
raise the rate (for instance, some beneficiaries make reference to 40%) and also
recommended the EC to leave full costing as an option for beneficiaries. In addition to that,
CH, UK and NO request the EC to provide clearer IPR rules while supporting flexibility.
The funding rates will probably be one of the last points to be agreed upon. It appears very
difficult to reach consensus. Several beneficiaries do not like the 100/20 proposal, but no
other solution seems to please them all.
Following such developments, I will hereafter provide conclusions and recommendations on
how Swiss stakeholders can further act in Brussels in order to safeguard their interests
related to the RfP of Horizon 2020.
Safeguarding Swiss interests in RfP of Horizon 2020
©SwissCore Page 37
5 Conclusions & Recommendations
In this final chapter I provide conclusions on how Swiss stakeholders and Government could
consider taking part in discussions and further influence the adoption of the RfP following on
their previous inputs to the EU institutions and taking into consideration the current progress
of the negotiations in Brussels. I also offer some reflections on the findings of this research
and how CH could act when seeking to influence EU policy formulation in an effective way.
Based on the desktop research and interviews, I learned that de facto information brought by
stakeholders is not subjected to a distinction whether a country is member of the EU or AC. I
also conclude that the level of importance is relative, and in any case CH is advantaged due to
its above-the-average performance in research and innovation activities (EC, 2012b, p. 8). I
conclude moreover that although CH does not have the same formal channels for voicing its
position as a MS, it has developed strategies to protect the interests of its researchers and
research institutions.
Finally, I could state that the presence of multiple access points at EU level pose a challenge
for Swiss stakeholders, for the EP and EC are dramatically different in both their composition
and informational needs. Having described the EU legislative procedure, I could claim that
there are many windows for the Swiss Government and Swiss stakeholders to bring their
inputs into consideration in the discussions taking place in Brussels. Thus, taking into
consideration the sub-conclusions and what has been said above, the hypothesis of
this thesis, that as a non-member CH cannot influence decisions at EU level, can be
refuted. For CH, both EC and EP are relevant places to safeguard its interests and the case of
RfP of Horizon 2020 studied in this thesis suggests CH succeeds in achieving this.
5.1 Horizon 2020 versus Structural Funds
As concluded in chapter 2, the new design of Horizon 2020 and its RfP, will most probably
increase coherence with other EU funding programmes, e.g. with the Structural Funds.
� CH does not participate in the Structural Funds. But, in order to safeguard its interests to
keep excellence as the only criterion in Horizon 2020, the Swiss Government could
consider underlining the need to make a distinction between participation in each
programme.
� moreover, the Swiss Government could consider suggesting the EC to use the Structural
Funds to fund proposals for Horizon 2020 that are above the quality line, but beneath the
funding line. According to MEP Maria da Graça Carvalho, rapporteur on the Specific
Programme of Horizon 2020, this support to capacity building for R&D at regional level
may allow a ‘stairway of excellence’ to be developed, leading less developed regions to
fully participate in Horizon 2020, based on quality and excellence (Carvalho, 2012, p. 28).
5.2 VAT Recoverability
In general, VAT recoverability is seen as positive by beneficiaries. Nonetheless, CH could still
emphasise that the EC should:
� provide clarity, consistency and unambiguity with regard to VAT recoverability, particularly
for organisations having both VAT exempt and VAT liable activities. The VAT recoverability
Safeguarding Swiss interests in RfP of Horizon 2020
©SwissCore Page 38
rules should be clarified especially in cases of contradictory rules on the national and
European levels. EC should provide clear guidelines to the beneficiaries on who can
recover VAT. This would reduce the potential number of errors, in particular for cross-
border transactions, where it is not always easy to establish the recoverability of VAT.
� provide a table indicating VAT in the different EU MS and AC, explaining when and where
and how to recover VAT and providing information on contact points. Experiences of
efficient ways of recovering VAT might serve as good practice.
� recognise non-recoverable VAT as an eligible cost (EARTO, 2012, p. 4).
5.3 Funding rates
For CH and other beneficiaries, the main objective of Horizon 2020 should be to couple
research and innovation. If public research organisations have to provide even more co-
financing in close to market projects, they will most probably not be willing to participate.
From the discussion on whether the proposals for direct and indirect costs lead to an increase
or loss of participation, it could be affirmed that one of the possible actions is to encourage
national experts to carry out simulations of financial consequences of the proposed rates for
different types of projects, to share and compare their results. Still, CH could react on the
following:
� there is an evident need for clarification of terminology and definitions through an
overarching framework ensuring that the discussions and the decisions about the project
type with respective 100 or 70% funding rate in the Programme Committees is
transparent.
5.4 Indirect costs
Following the critics on the proposed flat rate of 20% for indirect costs, Swiss stakeholders
could now respond to the solutions envisaged so far in Brussels. This discussion concerns in
particular ETHZ and EPFL, due to their high overhead. The main points, which could be further
analysed, are:
� the point is whether a higher rate of 40% would correspond to Swiss researchers
interests; taking into consideration that the higher the rate, the lower the number of
projects which will be funded in Horizon 2020.
� there are also recommendation of several actors (for instance, EUA and EARTO) to
maintain the full costing model as option. (EUA, 2012, p. 2) (EARTO, 2012, p. 1)
� Ehler recommended the EC that indirect costs, annual productive hours and average
personnel costs shall each be determined according to the usual cost accounting practices
of the beneficiary. (Ehler, 2012)
5.5 Reporting and auditing
CH could recommend the EC that a coherent interpretation of rules between EC officers and
auditors and the traceability of officers decisions is ensured. At this stage it is not clear how
this will be achieved. CH could analyse and respond to the following envisaged options:
� the EC should keep the 18-month reporting period.
Safeguarding Swiss interests in RfP of Horizon 2020
©SwissCore Page 39
� create more clarity for all beneficiaries, project officers and auditors by introducing FAQ
and sharing them.
� standard working hours are not a good option. Provide clear rules to introduce productive
hours given the own management and accounting practices at institutional level with a
cap at the maximum number of productive hours.
� execute the ex-post audits before the end of the project in order to allow for a learning
curve and adjustments.
Presence in the early discussions can most probably put CH in a better position and assure
smoother interaction with EP and Council. In general, stakeholders should be proactive to
have an impact in the negotiations.
5.6 Additional observations
On one side, due to the important role of the EP, and because CH does not have a formal
voice as other MS, it seems that it can be helpful to provide early inputs to the rapporteurs,
shadow rapporteurs and people with informal roles at the EP. The participation of Swiss
stakeholders in seminars, hearings and conferences is also relevant. On the other side,
regarding the interaction with the Council, CH could continue monitoring the position of MS
and fostering good relationships with them. It is not uncommon that beneficiaries in other MS
and AC face issues in a similar way as does the Swiss research and science community, as
demonstrated through my case. Therefore, CH could rely on bilateral exchanges to promote
its position and thus benefit from its partners to bring the Swiss perspective for discussion at
the Council. I have observed nevertheless that CH has less influence at Council level (in
comparison with the EC and EP), due to the several different Council configurations and the
many informal discussions among these actors (Council, 2012a) to which CH does not take
part as a non MS.
It seems that providing the EC and EP with a written statement on the Swiss position is not
enough to safeguard the Swiss research interests. The key element in an efficient strategy is
how CH will formulate its position. It should be clearly indicated why the Swiss interests are
important from the European point of view. The EU institutions will pay little attention to the
Swiss interests if they are not formulated/translated into a general ‘European’ interest.
I observed that an effective monitoring allied with targeted proactive actions are essential.
Even if there is possibility for any stakeholder, including individual researchers, to bring inputs
to the debate (for instance, to the EC). I concluded moreover that also for the Swiss case
different strategies are necessary and should be clearly defined depending on the nature of
each stakeholder (Andrée, 2008, pp. 43-45). In a nutshell, CH should be (pro-)active in
Brussels and research stakeholders should use their network to communicate inputs.
From the theoretical framework, based on the approach of David Easton and on the model of
Charles Jones, I could conclude that the decision-making process in CH concerning the EU
research programmes is developed in a sequential flow (this can be illustrated with the
consultation rounds conducted with Swiss stakeholders). Likewise, I could affirm that the
progress of the decision-making is much related to the EU agenda (e.g. responses to the
Green paper Consultation or the reaction to the Horizon 2020 proposal by means of an official
position) (cf. Appendix II).
Safeguarding Swiss interests in RfP of Horizon 2020
©SwissCore Page 40
In addition to that, I have observed that Easton’s concept, i.e. the transformation of inputs of
demand into outputs of decisions does apply to the Swiss case. In other words, using Easton’s
model I could identify a continuous process and interaction during policy formulation in CH.
However, to go beyond the general conditions seen along the process and understand how
the Swiss Government designed its position, Jones’ model was essential in providing the
missing element in this study: what happens inside the ‘black box’?. Jones showed how to
better describe the policy formulation leading to the Swiss position. Jones approach finally
enabled to see inside the ‘black box’ and to logically organise the process through which
policy is formulated in CH. Thus, I have identified that a ‘project team’ is in charge of the
negotiations and the decision making process related to Horizon 2020.
A broader conclusion from the findings is that the Swiss Government is able to track its
decision-making process and therefore to defend its position with transparency. Coupling
managerial and administrative interests, the Swiss position is the result of the interests of
Swiss stakeholders (from academia, business and industries) in the research and science
community.
Safeguarding Swiss interests in RfP of Horizon 2020
©SwissCore Page 41
Appendices
Appendix I: Ordinary legislative procedure (chart flow)
Source : European Commission (EC, 2012d)
Safeguarding Swiss interests in RfP of Horizon 2020
©SwissCore Page 42
Appendix II: Summary of EU agenda and Swiss inputs in Horizon 2020
EU institutions
CH
2010
EC – Start of Horizon 2020 preparation (EC, 2010b)
April
EC – Communication on FP simplification (EC, 2010)
September SER – Start of Horizon 2020 consultation with stakeholders (1st round)
EP – Report on simplifying the implementation of the Research FP (EP, 2010)
October
EC - Communication on the Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative Innovation Union (EC, 2010d) EC - Report on FP7 Interim Evaluation (EC, 2010c)
November
December
SER - Swiss General Considerations for FP8 (non paper) (SER, 2010a)
2011
EC - Innovation Union Scoreboard 2010 (EC, 2011j)
February
EC - Green Paper Consultation on a Common Strategic Framework for EU Research and Innovation Funding (EC, 2011i) EC - Orientation paper / Communication on Horizon 2020
March SER - Stakeholder consultation (2nd round)
May
SER – Full Compilation of stakeholders’ replies to the Green Paper Consultation on a Common Strategic Framework for EU Research and Innovation Funding (SER, 2011) SER - Synthesis of Swiss Responses to the Green Paper Consultation (SER, 2011a)
EC – Proposal Multiannual Financial Framework (EC, 2011)
June
EC - Proposals for Horizon 2020 (EC, 2011c)
November
2012
February SER – Stakeholder consultation (3rd round)
EC – Innovation Union Scoreboard 2011 (EC, 2012b)
March SER – Swiss position (SER, 2012)
EP - First Reading Horizon 2020 Council – Common Position Horizon 2020
Safeguarding Swiss interests in RfP of Horizon 2020
©SwissCore Page 43
2013
EP – Second Reading Horizon 2020 Council – Adoption of Horizon 2020 in Second Reading
2014
EC - Start Horizon 2020 January
Safeguarding Swiss interests in RfP of Horizon 2020
©SwissCore Page 44
Appendix III: List of interviews and open questions
SER Sonja Merwar Scientific Advisor International Cooperation
Interview: 22-05-2012 Approval: 05-07-2012
1. In which ways are the positions (i.e. individual inputs from institutions and stakeholders)
put together by SER to design the CH position?
2. How many rounds of formal meetings are there in the decision making process? The
description I make in “Decision-making process” (point 3.4 of this research) is it accurate?
3. How do informal exchanges take place in the decision making process?
4. How consensus making process is made possible between all stakeholders and the
Government?
5. How do you deal with conflicts (i.e. contradicting inputs, position papers, e.g. from
industries and universities)? Which means exist concerning conflict resolution?
6. What kind of preparation is there at SER during the months (or even the year) preceding
the publication of EC’s proposal?
7. How is the contact between CH and the EC (i.e. related to the EC participation in the
‘team project organisation’)
8. What are the potential gains of modifying the EC’s proposal for the RfP?
9. Why does the Swiss Government publish its position this early (in comparison with other
MS and AC)?
10. How do you monitor and set criteria to measure performance (i.e. the results of your
inputs at the EU level)?
OPET Roland Bühler Project Manager European Cooperation
Interview: 27-04-2012 Approval: 06-07-2012
1. How do you collaborate with SER to design the CH position?
2. How many rounds of formal meetings are there in the decision making process? The
description I make in “Decision-making process” (point 3.4 of this research) is it accurate?
3. How do informal exchanges take place in the decision making process?
4. How consensus making process is made possible between all stakeholders and the
Government?
5. Which means exist concerning conflict resolution?
6. What kind of preparation is there at OPET during the months (or even the year) preceding
the publication of EC’s proposal?
7. What are the potential gains of modifying the EC’s proposal for the RfP?
8. Why does the Swiss Government publish its position this early (in comparison with other
MS and AC)?
9. How do you monitor the results of CH inputs at the EU level?
SNSF Daniel Höchli Director
Interview: 25-04-2012
Elisabeth Mitter Scientific Officer
Interview: 23-04-2012
Safeguarding Swiss interests in RfP of Horizon 2020
©SwissCore Page 45
International Cooperation
Jean-Luc Barras Head International Cooperation
Approval: 09-07-2012
1. In which ways do you bring SNSF’ inputs to SER to design the CH position?
2. How many rounds of formal meetings are there in the decision making process? The
description I make in “Decision-making process” (point 3.4 of this research) is it accurate?
3. How do informal exchanges take place in the decision making process?
4. How do you safeguard SNSF’s interests in case of conflict with other stakeholders and/or
Government?
5. Why does the Swiss Government publishes its position this early (in comparison with
other MS and AC)?
6. How do you monitor/evaluate the results of your inputs to SER? EURESEARCH Olivier Küttel Director National Contact Point Coordinator
Interview: 26-04-2012
1. As an implementing agency, in which ways does Euresearch collaborate with SER to
design the CH position?
2. How many rounds of formal meetings are there in the decision making process? The
description I make in “Decision-making process” (point 3.4 of this research) is it accurate?
3. How do informal exchanges take place in the decision making process?
4. Which means exist concerning conflict resolution (i.e. among stakeholders and/or
Government )?
5. Why does the Swiss Government publish its position this early (in comparison with other
MS and AC)?
MISSION CH EU Danièle Rod Science & Technology Counsellor
Interview: 11-05-2012
Xavier Reymond Attaché to the Science & Technology Counsellor
Approval: 06-07-2012
1. How do you collaborate with SER to design the CH position?
2. How many rounds of formal meetings are there in the decision making process? The
description I make in “Decision-making process” (point 3.4 of this research) is it accurate?
3. How do informal exchanges take place in the decision making process?
4. How consensus making process is made possible between all stakeholders Government?
5. How do you deal with conflicts (i.e. contradicting inputs, position papers, e.g. from
industries and universities)? Which means exist concerning conflict resolution?
6. What kind of preparation is there at the Mission CH EU during the months (or even the
year) preceding the publication of EC’s proposal?
7. What kind of strategy do you have to communicate the CH position in Brussels?
8. Why does the Swiss Government publish its position this early (in comparison with other
MS and AC)?
9. How do you monitor the results of CH inputs at the EU level?
Safeguarding Swiss interests in RfP of Horizon 2020
©SwissCore Page 46
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Liliane de Wolf Research and Innovation DG Directorate A - Framework programme Interinstitutional relations 4. Legal matters
Interviews: 29-06-2012
Dana Alexandra Dumitrescu Legal Officer 4. Legal matters Olga Kopiczko Head of Sector - International Agreements Minna Wilkki Policy Officer - Science, Technology and Innovation cooperation with Western European (non-EU) countries and Western European Micro States. 1. Policy coordination, EFTA and Enlargement countries, Russia, Asia and Pacific. SIRIC Secretariat.
1. How the EC has taken into consideration CH position on Horizon 2020? (Have you read it
and talked about it with your colleagues at the EC?)
2. To what extent can the proposal for the RfP be modified?
3. What are the mechanisms of association for non-member states in Horizon 2020?
4. What are the implications for AC of the new legal form of the programme (regulation
instead of decision) as well as the introduction of ‘delegated acts’?
5. How can Swiss stakeholders influence the further discussion and adoption of the RfP in
order to optimally safeguard their interests?
6. The hypothesis of my research is “as a non-member CH cannot influence decisions at the
EU level”, is it true in general? And, how is it regarding Horizon 2020, in particular?
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT Gai Oren Secretariat of the ITRE Committee European Parliament
Interview: 15-06-2012 Approval: 04-07-2012
1. How the EP takes into consideration CH position on Horizon 2020? (Have you read it?
Have you and your colleagues talked about it in EP?)
2. My description of the institutional context of the EP (in section 4.2) is accurate?
3. What are the means for non-member states to influence EP discussions in Horizon 2020?
4. How can Swiss stakeholders influence the further discussion in EP and adoption of the RfP
in order to optimally safeguard their interests? What are the differences in the roles
played by CH stakeholders and CH Government in the discussions?
5. The hypothesis of my research is “as a non-member CH cannot influence decisions at the
EU level”, is it true in general? And, how is it for Horizon 2020, in particular?
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Susanne Burger Head of Division for Education and Research, EU-Education/Research/Science and Technology Policy, Development of the EU Research Area, Research Programmes, Space Policy (ESA) Permanent Representation of DE to the EU
Contacted on 04-06-2012
Safeguarding Swiss interests in RfP of Horizon 2020
©SwissCore Page 47
Scott Hudson First Secretary (Research & Innovation) Permanent Representation of the UK to the EU
Contacted on 06-06-2012
Davy Pieters First Embassy Secretary Research and Atomic Questions Division Permanent Representation of the NL to the EU
Contacted on 22-05-2012 Approval: 03-07-2012
These MS of the Council were contacted and requested to answer by email to the following
question:
1. Does your country share the same views as Switzerland, when it affirms that:
(i) the stronger reliance of the RfP on the EU’s FR does not only create some legal uncertainty
(a new regulation is foreseen for 2016). It is also even further apart from the daily business
of the Horizon 2020 participants and from Associated Countries?
(ii) the inclusion of (non-recoverable) VAT among the eligible costs is welcomed?
(iii) it welcomes the unification of reimbursement rates for direct and indirect costs, but the
20% flat rate for indirect costs may create serious problems for research and other
institutions with a high overhead?
(iv) it welcomes the distinction between two funding rates depending on the proximity of a
project to the market? (However, CH considers a 70% support rate is too high for big
companies, which are in principle more able to finance a market-driven project (risk of
windfall gain). On the other hand, this 70% could lead to a funding gap for research financed
by public funds. Overall, CH claims that the overall logic as well as the instance of decision of
when to apply 70 or 100% should be clear before projects are submitted)
(v) it supports continued flexibility of IPR rules, and requests more clarification on its
guidelines?
Norway Erik Yssen Counsellor for Research Mission of NO to the EU
Contacted on 22-05-2012 Approval: 09-07-2012
1. Does your country shares the same views as Switzerland, when it affirms that:
(i) the stronger reliance of the RfP on the EU’s FR does not only create some legal uncertainty
(a new regulation is foreseen for 2016). It is also even further apart from the daily business
of the Horizon 2020 participants and from Associated Countries?
(ii) the inclusion of (non-recoverable) VAT among the eligible costs is welcomed?
(iii) it welcomes the unification of reimbursement rates for direct and indirect costs, but the
20% flat rate for indirect costs may create serious problems for research and other
institutions with a high overhead?
(iv) it welcomes the distinction between two funding rates depending on the proximity of a
project to the market? (However, CH considers a 70% support rate is too high for big
companies, which are in principle more able to finance a market-driven project (risk of
windfall gain). On the other hand, this 70% could lead to a funding gap for research financed
by public funds. Overall, CH claims that the overall logic as well as the instance of decision of
when to apply 70 or 100% should be clear before projects are submitted)
(v) it supports continued flexibility of IPR rules, and requests more clarification on its
guidelines?
Safeguarding Swiss interests in RfP of Horizon 2020
©SwissCore Page 48
Yellowresearch Lotte Jaspers YellowResearch
Interview: 26-03-2012 Approval: 03-07-2012
Open discussion and guidance on the overall content, planning and structure of the research. I thank all interviewed persons for their openness, for their helpful remarks and for the time they took to share their experiences and opinions with me despite their busy agendas and demanding responsibilities. I have truly appreciated the support!
Safeguarding Swiss interests in RfP of Horizon 2020
©SwissCore Page 49
Bibliography
Andrée, D. (2008). A rough guide to the FP7 Work Programmes - Who can be involved in the preparation? What to do, when and how? Stockholm-Brussels: Ministry of Education
and Research and the Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems
(VINNOVA).
Cabinet of Germany. (2012, May 15). Horizon 2020: Source of new dynamic strength in Europe. Retrieved June 12, 2012, from Die Bundesregierung:
http://www.bmbf.de/pubRD/2012_05_15_Kernthesenpapier_englisch_oeffentliche_Fa
ssung.pdf
Carvalho, M. G. (2012, June 5). ITRE Draft Report on on the proposal for a Council decision establishing the Specific Programme Implementing Horizon 2020 - The Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014 - 2020). Retrieved July 2, 2012, from
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-
%2f%2fEP%2f%2fNONSGML%2bCOMPARL%2bPE-
489.688%2b01%2bDOC%2bPDF%2bV0%2f%2fEN
Council. (2012, May 31). Press Release - 3169th Council meeting. Retrieved June 6, 2012,
from Competitiveness (Internal Market, Industry, Research and Space) :
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/intm/130562.p
df
Council. (2012a). Each Member State participates in preparing the work of the Council and in its decision-making. Retrieved July 11, 2012, from Council Configurations:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/council/council-configurations?lang=en
CRUS. (2012). Organisation. Retrieved July 11, 2012, from La CRUS: http://www.crus.ch/la-
crus/organisation.html?L=1
CTI. (2011, April). Position of CTI on the development of FP8. Retrieved June 26, 2012, from
(n.d.).
CTI. (2012). The CTI. Retrieved June 28, 2012, from
http://www.kti.admin.ch/index.html?lang=en
EARTO. (2012, June 22). EARTO Position on the European Parliament Rapporteurs’ Recommendations concerning Horizon 2020. Retrieved June 28, 2012, from EARTO:
http://www.earto.eu/fileadmin/content/03_Publications/EARTO_Position_EP_Reports_
H2020.pdf
EASTON, D. (1957). An Approach to the Analysis of Political Systems. World Politics, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 383-400.
EASTON, D. (1965). A Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York: Wiley.
EC. (2006, December 30). Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities in actions under the FP7 and for the dissemination of research results (2007-2013). Retrieved March 9, 2012, from Official Journal of the European Union:
ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp7/docs/calls/ecrules_en.pdf
EC. (2010, April 29). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Simplifying the Implementation of the Research Framework Programmes. Retrieved February 23, 2012, from
http://ec.europa.eu/research/fp7/pdf/communication_on_simplification_2010_en.pdf#
view=fit&pagemode=none
EC. (2010a, December 07). Requests for redress. Retrieved March 7, 2012, from
http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/redress_en.html
EC. (2010b, April 12). A Roadmap Towards the Commission's Proposals For FP8. Retrieved
April 13, 2012, from DG RTD: http://www.europrogs.be/overige/o-o-in-
Safeguarding Swiss interests in RfP of Horizon 2020
©SwissCore Page 50
europa/Roadmap%20Towards%20Commission%20Proposal%20for%20FP8%20(April
%202010).pdf
EC. (2010c, November 2010). Interim Evaluation of the Seventh Framework Programme.
Retrieved June 27, 2012, from Report of the Expert Group:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/archive/other_reports_studies_and_doc
uments/fp7_interim_evaluation_expert_group_report.pdf
EC. (2010d, October 6). Communication on Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative Inovation Union.
Retrieved July 2, 2012, from Innovation Union:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/innovation-union-
communication_en.pdf
EC. (2011, June 29). Proposal for a Council Regulation laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020. Retrieved June 27, 2012, from Financial
Programming and Budget:
http://ec.europa.eu/budget/library/biblio/documents/fin_fwk1420/proposal_council_re
gulation_COM-398_en.pdf
EC. (2011a, November 30). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Horizon 2020 - The Framework Programme for Research and Innovation. Retrieved February 23, 2012, from
http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/pdf/proposals/communication_from_the_co
mmission_-_horizon_2020_-
_the_framework_programme_for_research_and_innovation.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=
none
EC. (2011b, November 30). Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and Council laying down the rules for the participation and dissemination in Horizon 2020. Retrieved February 23, 2012, from
http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/pdf/proposals/proposal_for_a_regulation_o
f_the_european_parliament_and_of_the_council_laying_down_the_rules_for_the_part
icipation_and_dissemination_in_horizon_2020%20(2014-
2020).pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none
EC. (2011c, November 30). Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and Council establishing Horizon 2020 - The Framework Programme for Research and Innovation. Retrieved February 23, 2012, from
http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/pdf/proposals/proposal_for_a_regulation_o
f_the_european_parliament_and_of_the_council_establishing_horizon_2020_-
_the_framework_programme_for_research_and_innovation_(2014-
2020).pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none
EC. (2011d, November 30). European Commission Impact Assessment Accompanying the Communication from the Commission 'Horizon 2020 - The Framework Programme for Research and Innovation'. Retrieved February 29, 2012, from
http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/pdf/proposals/horizon_2020_impact_asses
sment_report.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none
EC. (2011e, November 30). European Commission Impact Assessment (Rules for Participation) Accompanying the Communication from the Commission 'Horizon 2020 - The Framework Programme for Research and Innovation'. Retrieved March 1, 2012,
from
http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/ia_carried_out/docs/ia_2011/sec_2011_1427
_en.pdf
EC. (2011f, November 30). Factsheet: Rules under Horizon 2020. Retrieved March 5, 2012,
from
Safeguarding Swiss interests in RfP of Horizon 2020
©SwissCore Page 51
http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/pdf/press/fact_sheet_on_rules_under_horiz
on_2020.pdf
EC. (2011g, October 6). Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and Council laying down common provisions on the Structural Funds. Retrieved March 9, 2012,
from ec.europa.eu/esf/BlobServlet?docId=233&langId=en
EC. (2011h, January 12). Horizon 2020. Retrieved June 5, 2012, from A time line for Horizon
2020: http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/index_en.cfm?pg=h2020-timeline
EC. (2011i, February 09). Green Paper. From Challenges to Opportunities: Towards a Common Strategic Framework for EU Research and Innovation funding. Retrieved
June 26, 2012, from Horizon 2020:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/pdf/com_2011_0048_csf_green_paper_en.
pdf#page=2
EC. (2011j, February 1). Innovation Union Scoreboard 2010. Retrieved 06 26, 2012, from The
Innovation Union's performance scoreboard for Research and Innovation:
http://www.proinno-europe.eu/sites/default/files/docs_EIS2010/IUS_2010_final.pdf
EC. (2012). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committe and the Committe of the Regions 'A Simplification Agenda for the MFF 2014-2020'. Retrieved March 8, 2012, from
http://ec.europa.eu/budget/library/biblio/documents/fin_fwk1420/com_2012_42.5_en
EC. (2012a, February 8). Financial regulations. Retrieved March 8, 2012, from Financial
Programming and Budget:
http://ec.europa.eu/budget/biblio/documents/regulations/regulations_en.cfm
EC. (2012b, February 7). Innovation Union Scoreboard 2011 - Research and Innovation Union scoreboard. Retrieved February 7, 2012, from
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/files/ius-2011_en.pdf
EC. (2012c, April 24). Responses to the Green Paper from Switzerland. Retrieved June 27,
2012, from Contributions received in response to the Green Paper during the
consultation in 2011:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/cf_includes/popup.cfm?collect=post&ctry=
switzerland
EC. (2012d, May 4). Codecision step by step. Retrieved June 5, 2012, from flow chart:
http://ec.europa.eu/codecision/stepbystep/diagram_en.htm
EC. (2012e, January 31). Codecision procedure. Retrieved June 7, 2012, from European
Parliament (EP) First reading :
http://ec.europa.eu/codecision/stepbystep/text/index_en.htm#2
EC. (2012f, April 24). Contributions received during negotiations following the adoption of the Horizon 2020 proposal. Retrieved June 27, 2012, from Horizon 2020: written
responses: http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/index_en.cfm?pg=responses
EC. (2012g, June 15). Legislation. Retrieved July 2, 2012, from European Commission:
http://ec.europa.eu/legislation/index_en.htm
EC. (2012h, March 14). How to avoid common errors identified in cost claims. Retrieved July
5, 2012, from Note for beneficiaries in the 7th Framework Programme for Research
and Innovation: ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp7/docs/avoid-finance-errors-fp7-
2012-03-19_en.pdf
EC. (2012i, January 10). The EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation.
Retrieved July 10, 2012, from Horizon 2020:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/index_en.cfm?pg=h2020
Ehler, C. (2012, June 8). ITRE Draft Report on the proposed RfP of Horizon 2020. Retrieved
June 26, 2012, from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-
Safeguarding Swiss interests in RfP of Horizon 2020
©SwissCore Page 52
%2f%2fEP%2f%2fNONSGML%2bCOMPARL%2bPE-
489.632%2b01%2bDOC%2bPDF%2bV0%2f%2fEN
EP. (2010, October 6). Report on simplifying the implementation of the Research Framework Programmes. Retrieved June 27, 2012, from European Parliament (rapporteur: Maria
da Graça Carvalho): http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-
//EP//NONSGML+REPORT+A7-2010-0274+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN
EP. (2012, January). Co-decision and Conciliation. Retrieved June 12, 2012, from A Guide to
how the Parliament co-legislates:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/code/information/guide_en.pdf
EP. (2012a, June 5). European Parliament. Retrieved June 5, 2012, from Organisation and
work: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/0025729351/Organisation-
and-work.html
ERC. (2012). Funding and Grants. Retrieved March 7, 2012, from European Research Council:
http://erc.europa.eu/funding-and-grants
EU. (2007, June 30). Joint declaration on practical arrangements for the co-decision procedure. Retrieved June 11, 2012, from Official Journal of the European Union:
http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2007/c_145/c_14520070630en00050009.pdf
EU. (2008, May 9). Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Retrieved March 1, 2012, from Official Journal of the European Union:
http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:115:0047:0199:en:PDF
EUA. (2012, May 8). EUA Input to the Debate on the Rules for Participation in Horizon 2020.
Retrieved June 26, 2012, from
http://www.eua.be/Libraries/Policy_Positions/EUA_Input_to_the_Debate_on_the_Rule
s_for_Participation_in_Horizon_2020.sflb.ashx
Euresearch. (2012, April 20). Euresearch Handbook. Knowledge Management Working Group.
Berne, Switzerland.
Euresearch. (2012a). Vision Mission and Values. Retrieved June 28, 2012, from About
Euresearch: http://www.euresearch.ch/index.php?id=1354
FDFA. (2012). Mission of Switzerland to the European Union. Retrieved June 28, 2012, from
Federal Department of Foreign Affairs:
http://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/en/home/topics/eu/eu/misbr/taches.html
IGLO. (2012). Special meeting Report on the Rules for Participation of Horizon 2020. Brussels: IGLO Working Group 'Implementation of FP7'.
IGLO. (2012a, May 23). ERA in Action Session on Simplification. Brussels: IGLO.
JONES, C. (1984). An Introduction to the Study of Public Policy. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
KFH. (2011, May 13). Towards a European Framework for Innovation and Research Alliances: making the Innovation Union Work (Position Paper). Retrieved June 27, 2012, from
Rector’s Conference of the Swiss Universities of Applied Sciences:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/pdf/contributions/post/switzerland/rectors'
_conference_of_the_swiss_universities_of_applied_sciences.pdf
KFH. (2012). About the KFH. Retrieved June 28, 2012, from The KFH in brief:
http://www.kfh.ch/index.cfm?lang=e
Max Planck Society. (2003, October 22). Signatories. Retrieved June 27, 2012, from Berlin
Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities:
http://oa.mpg.de/lang/en-uk/berlin-prozess/signatoren/
Neth-ER. (2012, June 8). Ehler: Full Cost option back in the Rules for Participation. Retrieved
June 12, 2012, from Research and Innovation: http://www.neth-er.eu/en/news/ehler-
full-cost-option-back-rules-participation
Safeguarding Swiss interests in RfP of Horizon 2020
©SwissCore Page 53
OPET. (2011, April 14). Input for the Green Paper by OPET. Retrieved June 28, 2012, from
Online questionnaire for the Green Paper on a common strategic framework for EU
research and innovation funding:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/pdf/contributions/post/switzerland/switzerl
and_-_federal_office_for_professional_education_and_technology_-_opet.pdf
OPET. (2012). Federal Office for Professional Education and Technology OPET. Retrieved June
28, 2012, from http://www.bbt.admin.ch/bbt/portraet/index.html?lang=en
Royal Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research. (2012, April 16). Norwegian Positions on Horizon 2020. Retrieved June 12, 2012, from ERA Portal Austria:
http://www.era.gv.at/attach/NorwegianPositionPaperonHorizon2020Final.pdf
SER. (2010, March 29). Political benefits of involvement in FPs for Switzerland. Retrieved June
25, 2012, from Effects of Swiss participation in EU Research Framework Programmes
(Interim Report, 2009):
http://www.sbf.admin.ch/htm/dokumentation/publikationen/international/frp/effets-
pcr-e.pdf
SER. (2010a, December 1). Swiss General Considerations for FP8. Retrieved June 27, 2012,
from
http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/pdf/contributions/prior/switzerland.pdf#vie
w=fit&pagemode=none
SER. (2011, May 18). Full Compilation of individual positions from Swiss institutions and stakeholders. Retrieved June 27, 2012, from Online questionnaire for the Green Paper
on a common strategic framework for EU research and innovation funding:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/pdf/contributions/post/switzerland/compila
tion_of_individual_positions_from_swiss_institutions_and_stakeholders.pdf#view=fit&
pagemode=none
SER. (2011a, May 18). Elements of Swiss Responses to the Green Paper Consultation COM(2011) 48. Retrieved June 27, 2012, from (Synthesis of received replies):
http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/pdf/contributions/post/switzerland/state_se
cretariat_for_education_and_research.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none
SER. (2012, March 28). Horizon 2020 - Position of Switzerland. Retrieved June 27, 2012, from
http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/pdf/contributions/during-
negotiations/switzerland/position_of_switzerland_(state_secretariat_for_education_an
d_research)_on_horizon_2020.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none
SER. (2012a). The State Secretariat for Education and Research SER. Retrieved June 28,
2012, from http://www.sbf.admin.ch/htm/sbf/sbf_en.html
SER. (2012b). European Union Research Framework Programmes. Retrieved July 10, 2012,
from International: http://www.sbf.admin.ch/htm/themen/international/eu-
frp_en.html
SINTEF. (2012, May 16). SINTEF is a major participant in EU research programs. Retrieved
July 10, 2012, from This is SINTEF 2012:
http://www.sintef.no/upload/Konsern/Media/Fakta-
tekster/Generelle%20overhead%20engelsk%202012.pdf
SNSF. (2008, August 19). Principles of membership of the National Research Council. Retrieved June 27, 2012, from National Research Council:
http://www.snf.ch/SiteCollectionDocuments/stellen/snf_grundsaetze_fr_mitglieder_e.
SNSF. (2011, March 25). Position paper on the Common Strategic Framework for EU Research and Innovation Funding. Retrieved June 26, 2012, from
http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/pdf/contributions/post/switzerland/swiss_n
ational_science_foundation.pdf
Safeguarding Swiss interests in RfP of Horizon 2020
©SwissCore Page 54
SNSF. (2012). About us. Retrieved June 28, 2012, from http://www.snf.ch/E/about-
us/Pages/default.aspx
Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences. (2011, March 31). Position of the Swiss Academies on the Common Strategic Framework for Research and Innovation (CSFRI). Retrieved
June 26, 2012, from Position Statement:
http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=position%20of%20the%20swiss%20academ
ies%20on%20the%20common%20strategicframework%20for%20research%20and%
20innovation%20(csfri&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CFMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fw
ww.akademien-schweiz.ch%2Fdms%2FD%2FPublika
Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences. (2012). Organization chart. Retrieved June 28, 2012,
from http://www.scnat.ch/e/Portrait/Organigramm/index.php
SwissCore. (2012, May). SwissCore Handbook. Brussels, Belgium.
SwissCore. (2012a). Profile . Retrieved June 28, 2012, from SwissCore:
http://www.swisscore.org/E/profile/Pages/profile.aspx
SwissCore. (2012b). Latest Edition of the Synopsis. Retrieved June 28, 2012, from Newsletter
Synopsis: http://www.swisscore.org/E/newsletter/Pages/swisscore-synopsis.aspx
Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal. (2011, December 23). Brief regering. Retrieved June 12,
2012, from Fiche: Mededeling en verordeningen Horizon 2020 - Kaderprogramma voor
onderzoek en innovatie - Nieuwe Commissievoorstellen en initiatieven van de lidstaten
van de Europese Unie: http://www.europa-
nu.nl/9353000/1/j4nvgs5kjg27kof_j9vvikqpopjt8zm/vivt6lzy89zo/f=/kst221121310.p
df
UK Higher Education International Unit. (2012, March 16). UK Higher Education Sector Position on the Horizon 2020 Framework for Research and Innovation. Retrieved June
26, 2012, from http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/pdf/contributions/during-
negotiations/united_kingdom/uk_higher_education_position_on_horizon_2020.pdf#vi
ew=fit&pagemode=none
top related