safeguarding swiss interests in rules for participation & dissemination of horizon 2020 ·...

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

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


©SwissCore

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.


©SwissCore

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 ([email protected]) 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.


©SwissCore

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.


©SwissCore

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).


©SwissCore

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.


©SwissCore

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.


©SwissCore

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).


©SwissCore

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


©SwissCore

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


©SwissCore

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).


©SwissCore

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


©SwissCore

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.


©SwissCore

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.


©SwissCore

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.


©SwissCore

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)


©SwissCore

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


©SwissCore

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


©SwissCore

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


©SwissCore

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


©SwissCore

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.


©SwissCore

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.


©SwissCore

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).


©SwissCore

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.


©SwissCore

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


©SwissCore

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.


©SwissCore

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).


©SwissCore

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.


©SwissCore

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


©SwissCore

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


©SwissCore

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.


©SwissCore

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


©SwissCore

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.


©SwissCore

� 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).


©SwissCore

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.


©SwissCore

Appendices

Appendix I: Ordinary legislative procedure (chart flow)

Source : European Commission (EC, 2012d)


©SwissCore

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


©SwissCore

2013

EP – Second Reading Horizon 2020 Council – Adoption of Horizon 2020 in Second Reading

2014

EC - Start Horizon 2020 January


©SwissCore

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


1. How do you collaborate with SER to design the CH position?




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?


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



©SwissCore

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?




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


1. As an implementing agency, in which ways does Euresearch collaborate with SER to

design the CH position?




4. Which means exist concerning conflict resolution (i.e. among stakeholders and/or

Government )?


MS and AC)?

MISSION CH EU Danièle Rod Science & Technology Counsellor


Xavier Reymond Attaché to the Science & Technology Counsellor

Approval: 06-07-2012

1. How do you collaborate with SER to design the CH position?




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?


MS and AC)?

9. How do you monitor the results of CH inputs at the EU level?


©SwissCore

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


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


©SwissCore

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



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



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?


©SwissCore

Yellowresearch Lotte Jaspers YellowResearch


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!


©SwissCore

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-


©SwissCore

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


©SwissCore

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

.pdf

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=-


©SwissCore

%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


©SwissCore

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.

pdf

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


©SwissCore

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