Eurostars is a joint programme supporting R&D performing small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs). It is co-funded from the national budgets of 36 Eurostars countries and by the European Union through Horizon 2020.
Eurostars has been carefully developed to meet the specific needs of SMEs. With its bottom-up approach, it stimulates international collaborative research and innovation projects that will be rapidly commercialised.
Eurostars is an ideal first step in international cooperation, enabling small businesses to realise the many benefits of working beyond national frontiers. Participation in a Eurostars project can become a passport to growth, further innovation, an opening to new global markets and even greater business success.
Propose your project idea: https://www.eurostars-eureka.eu/
3. 2018 EUREKA Association
3
Joint programme
between EUREKA
and EU
Market-oriented Bottom-up International
cooperation
Dedicated
to R&D-
performing SMEs
4. 2018 EUREKA Association
4
Countries
36 countries
Austria
Bulgaria
Belgium
Canada
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
The Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
South Africa
South Korea
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
6. 2018 EUREKA Association
6
total costs of applications funded
€1.3 billion
number of participants
2,865
number of approved projects
899
total costs of applications
€4,4 billion
number of applicants
9,845
number of applications
3,104
41
countries
involved
29%
success
rate
€618M
estimated
public
funding
8. 2018 EUREKA Association
8
of the work
done by
SMEs
50%
of participants
are R&D
performing SMEs
76%
of SMEs have
less than 50
employees
83%
of SMEs workforce
is dedicated to
R&D activities
40%
11. 2018 EUREKA Association
11
Technological Areas
Electronics, IT
and Telecoms Technolo
31%
Biological Sciences /
Technologies
29%
Industrial Manufacturing,
Material and Transport
12%Projects submitted
Energy Technology
7%
Technology for Protecting
Man and the Environment
6%
12. 2018 EUREKA Association
12
Medical / Health Related
33%
Industrial Products /
Manufacturing
13%
Computer Related
9%
Projects submitted
Market Areas
Energy
8%
Services
8%
13. 2018 EUREKA Association
13
You need access to
someone else’s
science/technology
You have a solution
for someone else
Access skills you
don’t have
Requires
collaboration
across the value
chain
Share risks
15. 2018 EUREKA Association
15
REGISTRATION
My Eurostars
CONTACT
your NPC
Complete the
APPLICATION FORM
Upload
ANNEXES
SUBMIT
Check your
eligibility!
Read relevant
guidelines!
1
2
3
4
5
PROJECT IDEA
19. 2018 EUREKA Association
19
eligibility
Project leader is an R&D-
performing SME from a
Eurostars country
At least 2 participants
• Autonomous entities
• Legal entities
from at least 2 Eurostars countries
SMEs are in the driving seat
International balance
Project duration is max. 3 years
Market introduction within 2 years
20. 20
Quality and
efficiency of the
implementation:
basic assessment
• Quality of the consortium
• Added value through co-operation
• Realistic and clearly defined
project management & planning
• Reasonable cost structure
evaluation criteria
Excellence:
innovation and R&D
Impact:
market &
commercialisation
• Degree of innovation
• New applied knowledge
• Level of technical challenge
• Technological achievability & risk
• Market size
• Market access and risk
• Competitive advantage
• Clear and realistic
commercialisation plans
• Time to market
21. 2018 EUREKA Association
21
ON LEVEL
ON LEVEL
SIMULTANEOUSLY
Database of
experts
3 experts 3 evaluation
criteria
National funding
bodies (NFB)
Applications
financial viability
check
Application
assessment
Financial
viability
assessment
Public funding
22. 2018 EUREKA Association
22
Expert application
assessment
Application form
NFBs
Financial viability
assessment
Criteria
1 MAX 200
2 MAX 200
3 MAX 200
MAX 600
Treshold
Ranking list
Rank Project Criteria
1
Criteria
2
Criteria
3
Total
1 9252
2 9856
… …
185 8954 178 90 135 403
186 9899 120 122 121 363
187 9134 121 95 127 343
… …
• Only projects rated above the quality thresholds are recommended for funding
• The funding of projects is following the ranking list until national budget exhaustion
• The funding of partners is based on the national funding rules
24. 2018 EUREKA Secretariat
Verifies the respect of
ethical principles and
legislation
Consideration for all
Eurostars projects
on the ranking list
Ethics review
Each project
application must:
Identify and describe any potential
ethical issues
Detail how they plan to address them
Human embryos &
foetuses
Human beings
Human cells or tissues
Personal data
Animals
Non-EU countries
Environment, health &
safety
Dual use
Misuse and security
25. 2018 EUREKA Association
25
VERY LIKELY LESS LIKELY
Ethics clearance
The project proposal does not raise
ethics issues or the ethics issues
have been properly addressed
Conditional clearance
The ethics report will list 'ethics
requirements' which become
contractual obligations.
They may include:
• supplying further
information/documents
• adjusting methodology so as to
comply with ethical principles and
relevant legislation
• an ethics check
• appointing an independent ethics
advisor or ethics board (possibly
with a task to report on
compliance with ethics
requirements)
No ethics clearance
When a project proposal shows
major ethical flaws, it will not be
given ethics clearance, meaning
that the proposal may not eligible
for funding and will be rejected
28. 2018 EUREKA Association
Allow time for necessary
preparation (partner search,
project proposal, consortium
agreement…)
Build up a
« win-win » cooperation
Show complementarities and
added value of trans-national
partnership during and after the
project
Demonstrate each party’s
management, scientific and
technical skills as well as its
available financial resources for
the project
Define success indicators for
technological performance as well
as the commercial and financial
targets to achieve
Demonstrate clearly
why the projects
should be financed
Highlight the risks and the strategic
character of the project in terms of
expected commercial and financial
impact
Is it value for money?
In austerity, tax payers
money is a scarce
resource
Demonstrate the fact that you
have good financial health and
have considered all of your
options.
If you are too risky, you might not
be able to access support.
29. 2018 EUREKA Association
Define a methodical approach
in line with partnership, budget
and time limit set for the
completion of the project and
the marketing of its results
Point out the innovative
nature of the proposal
submitted
Present new industrial
applications and their impact
on the industry sector and
relevant markets
Who are you? Describe the benefits of this
partnership, the added value that each
organisation brings?
Focus on the project methodology
(objectives, means, results)
Appropriate and realistic cost breakdown
Analyse the risks. How will you mitigate
against them?
Promote the key elements the
evaluators are looking for and ask
an objective party to read it
Proof read it – this is the cheapest
way of making it better.
Don’t allow yourself to
be surprised by
anything
Do your homework
Speak to your National Project
Coordinator (NPC)
Don’t forget your market
(it sounds strange, but
people do)
Product plans, exploitation plans,
commercialisation strategy.
Analysis and comparison with state of the
art.
Barriers to market entry? Competitive
advantages?
Realistic market share? Will you actually
make ROI?
Or how to protect it – Good IPR
analysis/strategies are rare
30. 2018 EUREKA Association
30
1 2
3 4 5 6 8 9
14 15 16
17 18 21 22 23
24 25 27
S M T W T F S
12
26
February 2019
28 1 2
3 4 65 7 8 9
27 28
7
11
20
10
19
29 30 31
3104 Applications
899 Approved projects
325 Applications
Cut-Off 10
Cut-Off 1
to Cut-Off
9
Cut-Off 11
28
13
1. Key aspects of EUREKA’s USP were reaffirmed by project participants
2. Around two-thirds of participants joined EUREKA projects in order to boost international co-operation or create new business opportunities
3. Case studies found that a high degree of flexibility, freedom to create consortia and a strong bottom-up approach as key drivers of demand for EUREKA’s offering
For Eurostars, the evaluation phase covers the period from the submission deadline to the dispatch of letters confirming which projects will receive public support. Only the very best applications will successfully navigate the various stages and receive public support.
After the application submission deadline, a centralised evaluation process starts, managed by the EUREKA Secretariat (ESE).
Completeness check: One of the first activities is to check whether applications are complete (have all sections been completed, is the application form written in English, are all of the required annexes in place, has each organisation signed and returned the commitment and signature form, and when necessary, the SME declaration within the specified timeframe?). The failure of one applicant organisation to supply all of its required documents will result in the rejection of the entire application.
Eligibility check: Eurostars applications must meet all eligibility criteria before the two-step evaluation process starts, otherwise they will not be put forward for evaluation and will be excluded. The failure of any single criterion will result in the rejection of the entire application.
Expert evaluation & Financial viability check: Once checked for completeness and compliance with eligibility criteria, applications are evaluated. Each application is evaluated by three independent experts, commissioned by the EUREKA Secretariat. At the same time, at national level, participating Eurostars countries (National funding bodies) are responsible for the assessment of the financial viability of a project participant to finance the activities declared in the Eurostars Application Form according to applicable national regulations.
Panel evaluation + ranking: the results of the check: The applications which pass the first expert evaluation step are put forward for ranking by the Independent expert panel (IEP). Each application is collectively reviewed in an IEP meeting in Brussels, where the panelists meet to discuss the relative strengths and weaknesses of each application against the set criteria and each of the other applications. It is their job to identify the very best applications, and then rank them in descending order of quality, thereby producing a ranking list.
Eurostars applications must meet all eligibility criteria otherwise they will not be put forward for evaluation and will be excluded.
1st box:
Project leader must be an R&D-performing SME from a Eurostars country (E1, E2)
2nd box:
The consortium must include at least two partners independent from each other and established in at least two different Eurostars countries. Each participant must be a legal entity as defined by the legislation of the country where it is hosted. (E3, E4, E11)
3rd box:
SMEs are in the driving seat: The work has to be done in-house by R&D performing SMEs, meaning that the budget (excluding subcontracting) of the R&D performing SME(s) located in a Eurostars country(s) has to be equal to at least 50% of the total project budget (E5)
- These are the three evaluation criteria, which are inline with all the other H2020 evaluation criteria. - As you can see we have a first criteria that is the « »quality and efficiency of the implementation » that assess ……- A second criteria called « excellence » that …..
- And a third and last criteria that is the « impact »
Eurostars applications undergo a two-step evaluation process:
Step one: remote assessment of each application by three independent experts, matched to applications according to their technical and market expertise to provide objective evaluations consisting of scores, justifications, comments and recommendations against a set of standard criteria. There are three major criteria and for each sub criteria experts must provide score. Only if at least two of the three experts agree that at least two of the three criteria are satisfactory, will the application advance to the IEP for ranking.
At the same time, at national level, participating Eurostars countries (National funding bodies) are responsible for the assessment of the financial viability of a project participant to finance the activities declared in the Eurostars Application Form according to applicable national regulations. Financial viability or lack thereof, is not an eligibility criterion. It does not mean that a project is automatically excluded, but a negative assessment could be one of the determining factors for the panel evaluation.
The resulsts of the remote evaluation of the three experts and of the financial viability assessment is provided, along with the AP to an Indepent Expert Panel. And here starts the second and last evaluation phase.
The IEP evaluates the proposals according to the three evaluation criteria but with two different quality threeshold.
A proposal is considered approved by the IEP if it reaches at least 120 points in all three criteria and a overal score of 402 points (total score).
A final ranking list is produced. The project that are above both quality threshold are recommended for funding.
This list is important because the NFB follow the ranking list for funding until the national budget exhaustion. The allocation of budget also follow the national budget rules and procedures.
Unlike the application and the evaluation the funding is decentralized.
The participants dont sign a funding agreement with EUREKA Secretariat but each organziation sign its own financial agremeent with its NFB.
Thats why it is important to inform you before to apply, in order to know the percentage you can get, the eligile costs for your specific type of organization in your country.
(On avarage, 50 % of eligible project costs are covered by public funds, consisting of national and EU funding. The EU contribution amounts to about 20 % of national funds.)
All the projects that are in the ranking list and therefore reccomended for funding have to pass through a so called « Ethics Review ».
The projects are once again evaluated by a different panel of experts.
This is to verify if the projects present potential ethics issues that do not respect ethical principles and legislation. In the AP you have to indicate also if your project may raise ethical issues and how you address them.
The main ethics categories are: …..
The output of the ethics review could be one of the following:
a) ethics clearance: that means that no ethics issue related to the project and no additional documents will be asked to the participants.
b) conditional clearance: not impossible to overcome. Some requirements are asked to the organizations participating into the project. Ethics check: another evaluation will be performed in the next ethics panel (requirements analyzed) . It is a case by case analysis.
c) No ethics clearance: this doesnt mean that the project is rejected but put on hold till the participants can clarify the ethics issues. Less likely that the project get no ethics clearance.
The output of the ethics review could be one of the following:
a) ethics clearance: that means that no ethics issue related to the project and no additional documents will be asked to the participants.
b) conditional clearance: not impossible to overcome. Some requirements are asked to the organizations participating into the project. Ethics check: another evaluation will be performed in the next ethics panel (requirements analyzed) . It is a case by case analysis.
c) No ethics clearance: this doesnt mean that the project is rejected but put on hold till the participants can clarify the ethics issues. Less likely that the project get no ethics clearance.
The output of the ethics review could be one of the following:
a) ethics clearance: that means that no ethics issue related to the project and no additional documents will be asked to the participants.
b) conditional clearance: not impossible to overcome. Some requirements are asked to the organizations participating into the project. Ethics check: another evaluation will be performed in the next ethics panel (requirements analyzed) . It is a case by case analysis.
c) No ethics clearance: this doesnt mean that the project is rejected but put on hold till the participants can clarify the ethics issues. Less likely that the project get no ethics clearance.