Results of the first questionnaire Good morning everyone, This is Sara from Veltha, I am here to present the results of the first questionnaire, it was sent to the regional offices managing structural funds. It was made to collect a general overview. We received 11 answers from 10 regions. Sara Bergamin - VELTHA

INTRODUCTION Anonymous questionnaire sent on December 2016 First set of questions, to have a first general overview General queries, not yet specifically dealing with Circular Economy and S3 Targeted to regional officers dealing with Structural Funds 11 replies received from 10 regions (two offices from one region) All the participants report the absence of a tool through which the outcomes of H2020 (or previous program) can be consulted by subjects applying for their Structural Funds for Innovation.

Question 1 When a subject in your Region decides to apply to your Structural Funds for Innovation, is there any tool available for looking at the results of H2020 (or previous FP7) projects that may be used for their innovation purposes? The first question asked if the Regions have a tool that can be used by applicants to look at the results of previous projects. As you can notice from the graph, all the regions do not have this type of instrument, 100% answered NO.

Questions 2 and 3 If the previous answer is YES, did you receive any application linked to the results of a previous H2020 or FP7 project? If yes, please indicate the number of applications. If the previous answer is YES how many of the above applications were financed? None of the participating regions received applications linked to the results of previous H2020 of FP7 project, thus such projects were not financed. The second and third questions investigated if the regions received or financed proposals that were linked to the outcomes of previous projects. None of the regions received them so no one was financed.

Are you aware about the “Seal of Excellence” initiative? Question 4 Are you aware about the “Seal of Excellence” initiative? The 4th question was about the awarness of the regions about “Seal of Excellence”, that is an initiative of the EUropean Commission. It is a quality label awarded to projects submitted to Horizon 2020 which, due to budget limits, did not receive funding. As the picture shows, the great majority of the regions know the seal of excellence WHILE 2 do not.

Questions 5 and 6 If the previous answer is YES, did you receive any application for funding by a SME showing its “Seal of Excellence”? Question 5 and 6 wanted to understand if the regions received and financed proposals that were labelled with the seal of excellence. As the graph shows, the great majority did not receive such applications. 2 regions received it and two proposals were financed by the same region. Two partners received application for funding by SME that gained the “Seal of Excellence” label. There were 2 “Seal of Excellence” applications financed among the 10 considered regions. The two applications were financed by one participant.

Question 7 Please give your opinion about the “Seal of Excellence”. It is a good initiative, because we can use the Seal of Excellence to trust a proposal already well evaluated by the Commission Services, thus saving efforts and time for the evaluation of the proposals Nice initiative, but we in any case will follow our procedures, eventually increasing the score of the proposal We do not consider in any case the Seal of Excellence: the proposal will be managed like the others Question 7 invesitated the opinion of the regions about the seal of excellence, in particular if they are willing to trust the labelled proposal or not. As the graph undelines one do not want to consider the label. 3 regions are available to trust the Commission evaluation. The majority, in red, consider positively the initiative but they can only increase the score of the labelled proposal. The great majority of the participants (91%) considers positively the “Seal of Excellence” award. Meanwhile one region states that its management does not consider the label prized by the European Commission. Although the high frequency of favorable opinion, only 3 members declare that they are available to trust the abovementioned award, thus saving efforts and time for evaluating proposals again. Quite half of the region, despite their affirmative consideration about the “Seal of Excellence ”, are solely available to increase the score of the prized SMEs, while they are willing to continue in following their usual procedures.

Question 8 In case one H2020 proposal presented by a consortium having one or more partners coming from your region receives a score of 12 or 13 points out of 15, but it is not financed due to budget limits, could the specific part assigned to subjects belonging to your region be in principle financed by your structural funds? (Please give your answer ”in principle”, without taking into consideration any practical barrier) In principle yes In principle yes, under the condition that the proposal complies with the axis/measures of our Structural Funds and all the other partners of the consortium guarantee their own budget c) In principle no In relation to the possibility of financing though Regional Structural Funds the H2020 proposals assessed with high score, the majority of the participants agrees in principle Under the conditions that other partners of the Consortium can guarantee their own budget. 4 Regions reported their unwillingness to finance.

Question 9 H2020 “Innovation Actions” (IA) are financed by the European Commission at 70%. In case of an IA selected for financing and having one partner belonging to your region, could such a partner be in principle financed for the remaining 30% by your structural funds? (Please give your answer ”in principle) In principle yes In principle yes, under the condition that the proposal complies with the axis/measures of our Structural Funds and all the other partners of the consortium guarantee their own budget c. In principle no Question 9 referred to the “Innovation Actions - IA”, in particular to the chance of finance the regional actor through usage of structural fund. European Commision finance 70 % so the regions were asked if they were willing to finance the remaining 30%. As the pie chart shows the majority of the participants accomplish if other member of consortium can guarantee their budget. 4 regions are not available.

Question 10 When a H2020 project is terminated, their results are in general not yet “ready to the market”; do your Structural Funds procedures foresee any “shortcut” for proposals that are the follow up of a H2020 project just terminated? Question 10 asked if the regions provide shortcut for proposals that are follow-up terminated projects. As the image shows, the great majority do not have the shortcut, it is present in one region.

Question 11 If the previous answer is NO, do you think that such a shortcut could improve the quality of the innovation proposal financed by your Structural funds? COMMENTS Four positive comments and 3 negative ones Question 11 wanted to discover the opinion of the regions, if they believe that the shortcut can improve the quality of the innovation proposals for their structural funds. We received 3 positive and 3 negative comments.

CONCLUSIONS Need of a tool allowing entrepreneurs to surf among the H2020 results, in order to not jeopardize the Commission’s efforts in R&I programme “Seal of Excellence well known and appreciated, but very few practical results The majority of the regions is available, even if “in principle”, to finance their partners in well ranked but not financed H2020 projects No shortcuts for proposals that are H2020 follow up in almost all the regions The conclusions resulting from the presented data can be explained in 4 points. There is the need for a tool to look to the results of ended projects. The seal of excellence is well known but it is little used. The majority of the regions are in principle willing to finance the regional actors in the Horizon well ranked but not financed projects In almost all the region the shortcut for follow-up proposal is not present.