Europaudvalget 2019
KOM (2019) 0331
Offentligt
2062986_0001.png
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Brussels, 5.4.2019
SEC(2019) 275 final
REGULATORY SCRUTINY BOARD OPINION
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council
on the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (recast)
and
Proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Strategic
Innovation Agenda of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) 2021-2027:
Boosting the Innovation Talent and Capacity of Europe
{COM(2019) 330 }
{COM(2019) 331 }
{SWD(2019) 330 }
{SWD(2019) 331 }
kom (2019) 0331 - Ingen titel
2062986_0002.png
Ref. Ares(2019)2416673 - 05/04/2019
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Regulatory Scrutiny Board
Brussels,
Ares(2019)/PB/bk
Opinion
Title:
Impact Assessment / Strategic Innovation Agenda of the EIT for 2021-2027
and the amendment of the EIT Regulation
(version of 20 March 2019)
Overall 2
nd
opinion:
POSITIVE
(A) Context
The European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) has promoted innovation and
entrepreneurship since 2008. EIT provides grants to knowledge and innovation
communities (KICs). KICs are partnerships between higher education, research and
entrepreneurs. They foster knowledge creation and innovation. There are currently eight
KICs, each geared towards different societal challenges. The EIT now operates under
Horizon 2020, and is due to become part of the proposed Horizon Europe 2021-2027
framework programme for research and innovation. The Commission has proposed a
budget of EUR 3 billion under Horizon Europe for the EIT.
The impact assessment needs to inform two sets of political decisions. First, it considers
amendments to the EIT regulation. Second, it looks at formulations for a new strategic
innovation agenda (SIA) for 2021-2027. The EIT Regulation says that an SIA is to set
the EIT’s objectives and principles to achieve them. This includes activities the EIT
will
conduct, financing modalities of the KICs, and the societal challenges that future KICs
will address.
(B) Main considerations
The Board takes note of substantial improvements to the impact assessment.
The Board gives a positive opinion, with a recommendation to further improve the
report with respect to the following key aspects:
(1) The report does not sufficiently analyse stakeholder views of the different
options.
(2) The report leaves unclear how the KICs are sustainable under the new funding
rules.
(3) The report leaves unclear what success of the regional outreach would look like.
Note that this opinion concerns a draft impact assessment report which may differ from the one adopted.
1
kom (2019) 0331 - Ingen titel
2062986_0003.png
(C) Further considerations and recommendations for improvement
(1) The report should present in more detail the views of the relevant stakeholder groups
on the different policy options.
(2) The revised report explains better how the funding model of the KICs would change.
It should answer better the question how the KICs are expected to operate under these
new constraints. It is not clear whether and why partners will continue KIC membership
facing reduced co-funding from the EIT, greater pressure on openness and tightened
performance monitoring by the governing board. These changes could all make the
membership less attractive.
(3) The box on agglomeration economies is informative. The explanation suggests that it
could be difficult to decentralise innovation. In this context, the report should clarify
whether the regional hubs compete with the agglomerations or whether they instead have
a technology transfer function.
(4) The report could further elaborate on potential administrative burden reduction with a
focus on the reporting on “KIC complementary activities,” in particular for the preferred
option.
(5) The report presents a monitoring and evaluation system that matches objectives with
corresponding indicators. It clarifies the sources and the responsibilities for data
collection. It would be useful to define benchmarks for measuring success. The report
could also make better use of the intervention logic to identify testable hypotheses.
(6) The revised report is more reader-friendly with the addition of boxes, visual aids
including a problem tree, objective tree and a revised intervention logic diagam. The
report should more systematically cite data sources.
The Board takes note of the quantification of the various costs and benefits associated
with the preferred option of this initiative, as assessed in the report considered by the
Board and summarised in the attached quantification tables.
(D) RSB scrutiny process
The lead DG shall ensure that the recommendations of the Board are taken into
account in the report prior to launching the interservice consultation.
The attached quantification tables may need to be further adjusted to reflect any
changes in the choice or the design of the preferred options in the final version of the
report.
Full title
Proposal for amending Regulation (EC) No 294/2008 of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008
establishing the European Institute of Innovation and
Technology and Proposal for a Strategic Innovation Agenda of
the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT)
2021-2027
PLAN/2017/1516
Written procedure
Reference number
Date of RSB meeting
2
kom (2019) 0331 - Ingen titel
2062986_0004.png
ANNEX: Quantification tables extracted from the draft impact assessment report
submitted to the Board on 20 March 2019
(N.B. The following tables present information on the costs and benefits of the initiative in question. These
tables have been extracted from the draft impact assessment report submitted to the Regulatory Scrutiny
Board on which the Board has given the opinion presented above. It is possible, therefore, that the content
of the tables presented below are different from those in the final version of the impact assessment report
published by the Commission as the draft report may have been revised in line with the Board’s
recommendations.)
Table 1: Overview of benefits
I. Overview of Benefits (total for all provisions)
Preferred Option (Option 2)
Description
Amount1
Direct benefits
Number of students
involved in EIT
entrepreneurial education
actions
22.500
students
The impact of the new action of the EIT on
supporting entrepreneurial and innovative
capacity of HEIs will increase through engaging
more partners in the education activities,
reaching out to more students, facilitating the
transformation of good ideas in new ventures
and supporting capacity development of higher
education institutions
KICs offer technical education programmes
(mainly Masters and PhDs) with a strong focus
on soft skills, entrepreneurship and innovation
management,
mobility
aspects,
trans-
disciplinarity. The EIT Label will be
strengthened in
its
quality assurance
mechanisms and will be extended to lifelong
learning activities.
The EIT will launch a new action by providing
support to higher education institutions to
further develop their entrepreneurial and
innovation capabilities using the HEInnovate
framework to design action plans and
implement them. By linking financial support
(through specific calls for proposals addressing
beneficiaries which are not necessarily partners
of a KIC) to develop education & training
programmes and support the entrepreneurial
capacities of higher education institutions in low
innovation performing regions, the EIT will
contribute to reducing the innovation divide.
Comments
Number of graduates of
EIT labelled programmes
10.000
graduates
Number of Higher
Education Institutions
(HEI) participating in the
EIT entrepreneurial
capacity actions
450 HEIs
Number of innovative
products (goods or
4300 products The number of product innovations (goods or
services) launched on the market during and
1
The numbers, where available, arise from the calculations and projections that are detailed in chapter 6 of
the main report, the impact analysis.
3
kom (2019) 0331 - Ingen titel
2062986_0005.png
services) launched on the
market as well as new
processes, methods, ideas
or marketing innovations
implemented
following KIC support or the number of
processes and marketing innovations or
new/significantly improved methods introduced
following KIC support. By innovations, we
mean new or significantly improved products
(goods or services), processes, ideas or
marketing innovations implemented.
680 start-ups
Innovative technological solutions can be
commercialised by new start-ups, brought to
market by existing businesses, implemented to
strengthen existing businesses, or used as a basis
for further technological development. Through
the policy of supporting ‘better’ and not ‘more’
start-ups, it is assumed that the number of start-
ups generated will not necessarily increase in
2021-2027, but that the quality of the start-ups
increases.
Overall participation in ETI and KIC activities
of organisations from moderate and modest
innovation countries will comprise the current
and future RIS participating organisations as
well as organisations participating in new action
of the EIT on supporting entrepreneurial and
innovative capacity of HEIs.
Start-ups supported
Participating organisations 500
from moderate or modest
innovator countries
4
kom (2019) 0331 - Ingen titel
2062986_0006.png
Table 2: Overview of the costs
II. Overview of costs
Preferred option (Option 2)
Citizens/
Consumers
One-
off
None
Recurrent
None
KICs (and its partners
businesses,
universities, RTOs)
One-off
For existing
KICs: Adapt the
monitor system
in order to
account for the
indicators’
framework.
Compliance and
implementation
costs arising
from adaptation
of the funding
model for
already existing
KICs.
Costs of applying
to become a KIC.
Indirect costs
None
None
None
None
None
Recurrent
Increased
administrative
costs due to the
need to widen the
scope of their
monitoring
activities and
report on
additional
performance
indicators.
Annual
membership fees
of KIC partners -
recurrent cost
EIT Administrations
One-off
Put in place
the new
monitoring
system.
Recurrent
Admin costs for
improved monitoring
and supervision of KICs
Increased number of EIT
staff to monitor KICs
and to manage the EIT
own’s activities (i.e.
support to HEIs to
develop their
entrepreneurial and
innovation capacity).
Overall costs of EIT as a
central service over 7
years is EUR 70 million
All considered
actions
Direct costs
5
kom (2019) 0331 - Ingen titel
2062986_0007.png
Ref. Ares(2019)934880 - 15/02/2019
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Regulatory Scrutiny Board
Brussels,
Ares(2019)
Opinion
Title: Impact Assessment / Strategic Innovation Agenda of the EIT for 2021-2027
and the amendment of the EIT Regulation
(version of 22 January 2019)
Overall opinion: NEGATIVE
(A) Context
The European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) has promoted innovation
and entrepreneurship since 2008. EIT provides grants to knowledge and innovation
communities (KICs). KICs are partnerships between higher education, research and
entrepreneurs. They foster knowledge creation and innovation. There are currently eight
KICs, each geared towards different societal challenges. The EIT now operates under
Horizon 2020, and is due to become part of the proposed Horizon Europe 2021-2027
framework programme for research and innovation. The Commission has proposed a
budget of EUR 3 billion under Horizon Europe for the EIT.
The impact assessment needs to inform two political decisions. First, it considers
amendments to the EIT regulation. Second, this impact assessment looks at a new
strategic innovation agenda (SIA) for 2021-2027. The EIT Regulation says that an SIA
is to set the
EIT’s objectives and principles to achieve them. This includes activities the
EIT will conduct, financing modalities of the KICs, and the societal challenges that
future KICs will address.
(B) Main considerations
The Board takes note of written commitments to introduce several changes to the
report.
The Board gives a negative opinion, because the report contains important
shortcomings that need to be addressed, particularly with respect to the following
key aspects:
(1)
The report does not explain what still needs to be decided and what is
covered under Horizon Europe. It is also unclear which elements pertain to
Note that this opinion concerns a draft impact assessment report which may differ from the one adopted.
Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË
Tel. +32 22991111
Office: BERL 02/342
Tel. direct line +32 229 90087
kom (2019) 0331 - Ingen titel
2062986_0008.png
the new SIA and the amended EIT Regulation, respectively.
(2)
The report does not provide evidence that demonstrates the need to act on
alleged problems. It is also not clear how the options respond
comprehensively to the reported problems.
The report does not explain why the reallocation of funds works in opposite
directions for different options, nor does it explain what the regional hubs
achieve.
(3)
(C) Further considerations and adjustment requirements
(1)
The report should better explain what the Commission needs to decide at this
stage. It should clarify the urgency to act and coherence with other initiatives.
The elements already covered under the Horizon Europe proposal should come
out more clearly. Also, the policy context should explain the alignment with the
priorities and strategic planning of the programme. In particular, the report
should clarify the timing and coherence between the choice of additional KICs in
the SIA and the ongoing strategic planning process of Horizon Europe. It should
acknowledge any possible risks in this respect. It should better delineate between
the content of the SIA and the EIT Regulation.
The intervention logic should show how the identified problems get in the way of
achieving the policy objectives, and how measures contained in the alternative
options would resolve this. The report should better explain why the problems
require a legislative solution. It should better use the available evidence, e.g. the
interim evaluation and the Court of Auditors report. The problems and their
magnitude need more in-depth analysis, notably in the areas of education and
regional outreach. Other relevant problems need assessment, such as
administrative costs or burdens for SMEs. The section should also better outline
the problems specific to KICs, especially the choice of new ones.
Based on the improved description of the scope of this initiative, the baseline
should include all elements that the Horizon Europe proposal has already
determined. It should not assume elements which are still undecided. It should
explain the consequences of not acting.
The options should contain alternative solutions to the identified problems and
for the decisions to take, such as the choice of themes for new KICs. The report
should make clear what measures are contained in each option, and how they
would tackle the problems in practice. The options should explore alternative
uses of the available budget. In particular, they should better explain alternatives
regarding the number, funding and management of the KICs and of centralised
EIT actions. They should also explain how incentives would result in adequate
private co-financing. The report should report on the opinions of stakeholders on
the options.
The report should better explain what the probability of success is under each
option. It should better analyse all relevant impacts, including regulatory costs
and benefits, social impacts, and impacts on SMEs. The report should clarify the
expected societal return of the different options, including the regional outreach.
2
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
kom (2019) 0331 - Ingen titel
2062986_0009.png
It should examine whether regional outreach might conflict with agglomeration
economies in creating knowledge. How the report arrives at the preferred option
should come out more clearly. The report should use clear criteria to compare
across the alternatives.
(6)
The evaluation arrangements should define benchmarks for what success of the
initiative would look like. In doing so, the report should identify operational
objectives and link them with monitoring indicators.
The presentation of the report should be more reader friendly, avoiding jargon
and using plain language. It should enable the reader to understand how the EIT
works and cooperates with KICs. The report should be self-standing and
independent from annexes and external documents, e.g. the evaluation. The
report could use more visual aids, e.g. a problem tree, illustrations and diagrams.
(7)
Some more technical comments have been transmitted directly to the author DG.
(D) RSB scrutiny process
The lead DG shall ensure that the report is revised in accordance with the above-
mentioned requirements and resubmitted to the Board for its final opinion.
Full title
Proposal for amending Regulation (EC) No 294/2008 of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008
establishing the European Institute of Innovation and
Technology and Proposal for a Strategic Innovation Agenda
of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology
(EIT) 2021-2027
PLAN/2017/1516
13 February 2019
Reference number
Date of RSB meeting
3
Electronically signed on 15/02/2019 19:04 (UTC+01) in accordance with article 4.2 (Validity of electronic documents) of Commission Decision 2004/563
05/04/2019 09:33 (UTC+02)