<b>Bijsluiter</b>. De hyperlink naar het originele document werkt niet meer. Daarom laat Woogle de tekst zien die in dat document stond. Deze tekst kan vreemde foutieve woorden of zinnen bevatten en de opmaak kan verdwenen of veranderd zijn. Dit komt door het zwartlakken van vertrouwelijke informatie of doordat de tekst niet digitaal beschikbaar was en dus ingescand en vervolgens via OCR weer ingelezen is. Voor het originele document, neem contact op met de Woo-contactpersoon van het bestuursorgaan.<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 1 ======================================================================

<pre>STRATEGIC
INTERPLAY
COMBINE THE STRENGTHS OF THE NETHERLANDS AND
THE EU FOR GREATER RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IMPACT
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 1 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 2 ======================================================================

<pre>The Dutch Advisory Council for Science, Technology and Innovation (AWTI) publishes
solicited and unsolicited advisory reports to the Dutch government. Its independent
reports are strategic in nature and focus on the contours of government science,
technology and innovation policy. Council members are drawn from knowledge
institutes and the business world. AWTI’s work is founded on the principle that
knowledge, science and innovation are vital for the economy and society, and will
become more important in the future.
The Council is made up of the following members:
Dr. E.E.W. (Eppo) Bruins (Chair)
Dr. S. (Sjoukje) Heimovaara (Vice-chair)
Dr. J.P.H. (Jos) Benschop
Prof. Dr. K. (Koenraad) Debackere
Prof. Dr. J. (Jolanda) Kluin
Prof. Dr. E.H.M. (Ellen) Moors
C. (Chokri) Mousaoui
J.L. (Anka) Mulder
Dr. h.c. M. (Marleen) Stikker
Prof. Dr. V. (Vinod) Subramaniam
P.W.J. (Patrick) Essers (Secretary)
The office is located at:
Prins Willem-Alexanderhof 20
2595 BE Den Haag
The Netherlands
t. +31(0)70 3110920
e. secretariaat@awti.nl
w. http://english.awti.nl
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 2 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 3 ======================================================================

<pre>Strategic interplay
Combine the strengths of the Netherlands and the EU for
greater research and innovation impact
March 2023
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 3 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 4 ======================================================================

<pre>Photography                             Bas Kijzers Fotografie
Design                                  2D3D Design (layout), Kate Snow Design (illustrations)
Printing                                Quantes
                                        March 2023
All publications may be downloaded free of charge from www.awti.nl
Copyright
All rights reserved. Subject to the inclusion of a correct, specific source reference, this publication or parts thereof may be reproduced,
stored or made public without the prior written consent of AWTI. A correct source reference must as a minimum state clearly the name
of the organisation as well as the name and year of the publication.
Strategic interplay                                                                                                                       2
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 4 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 5 ======================================================================

<pre>Contents
Summary                                                                                      5
1    Background and request for advice                                                       7
1.1 Research and innovation of strategic importance for the EU                               7
1.2 Request for advice                                                                      10
1.3 Approach taken in this advisory report                                                  11
2    Analysis                                                                               13
2.1 Growing importance of EU policy for STI                                                 13
2.2 Dutch actors benefit from EU STI policy                                                 18
2.3 EU policy makes sub-optimal contribution to Dutch ambitions                             32
2.4 Conclusion: Dutch research and innovation benefits from EU funding, but a lack of
     joined-up policy means its impact on the achievement of ambitions is still too limited 41
3    Recommendations                                                                        45
3.1 Ensure good alignment between Dutch and EU policy on STI so that they reinforce or
     complement each other                                                                  45
3.2 Take a proactive and strategic stance in Brussels with a focused agenda                 47
3.3 Continue to support basic research in the EU and link it more effectively to
     innovation                                                                             48
3.4 Create regional links with EU STI policy                                                50
3.5 Provide support in making use of EU instruments                                         52
3.6 Safeguard opportunities for collaboration with attractive non-EU partners               53
Appendix 1 Request for advice                                                               58
Appendix 2 Reviewers                                                                        60
Appendix 3 Interviewees                                                                     61
Appendix 4 References                                                                       63
Strategic interplay                                                                          3
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 5 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 6 ======================================================================

<pre>   Problem: Lack of joined-up policy undermines STI contribution to achievement of the
                                       ambitions
    Advice: Ensure a coherent mix of EU and Dutch policy aimed at achieving ambitions
Strategic interplay                                                                    4
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 6 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 7 ======================================================================

<pre>Summary
Science, technology and innovation (STI) are crucial for the future of the EU and the
Netherlands: for the development of the EU and the Netherlands as knowledge
economies and in the light of the many societal challenges we face. The EU accordingly
formulates policy to promote STI, as the Netherlands does. How can we ensure that
European and Dutch STI policy are better aligned and mutually reinforcing?
EU policy on STI offers many opportunities for all types of research and innovation. The
EU’s focus on excellence has helped steadily raise the bar for the standard of research in
Europe. EU STI policy also promotes international cooperation. Compared with their
counterparts in other countries, Dutch knowledge institutes, companies and other
organisations make extensive use of the opportunities offered by the EU, but even so
there are practical barriers which make access more difficult for certain actors, such as
universities of applied sciences and SMEs.
One problem is that EU and Dutch policy on STI are relatively ‘separate’ from each other,
each following its own direction and not in perfect alignment with each other. This means
opportunities are missed to create ‘leverage’ in which one policy instrument can reinforce
another. The Netherlands could also operate more effectively in Brussels to ensure better
alignment between the Dutch and EU policy agendas. And while there is a strong focus
on the resources needed to support research and innovation, the policy devotes much
less attention to the impact: how much do the supported research and innovation
activities actually contribute to the achievement of the policy ambitions?
Advice: Ensure a coherent mix of European and Dutch STI policy aimed at
achieving the ambitions
The Dutch Advisory Council for Science, Technology and Innovation (AWTI) advises that
European and Dutch policy on STI be treated as a single whole in which the different
components are aligned in a way that creates a coherent policy mix. At the same time, it
is key to ensure that the promoted STI activities actually contribute to achieving the
ambitions. AWTI makes the following six recommendations for achieving this.
Recommendation 1: Ensure good alignment between Dutch and EU policy on STI
so that they reinforce or complement each other
Treat Dutch and European policy on STI as a single whole. Maintain a clear view of the
ambitions and create a coherent policy mix which serves those ambitions. Ensure that
Dutch and EU policy instruments (including fiscal policy) reinforce or complement each
other. Carry out a preliminary ‘EU check’ when designing Dutch STI policy, then make a
considered judgement on how and where Dutch policy will align with this, and carry out a
subsequent evaluation of the whole policy mix of national and EU instruments.
Strategic interplay                                                                        5
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 7 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 8 ======================================================================

<pre>Recommendation 2: Take a proactive and strategic stance in Brussels with a
focused agenda
The Netherlands could be more effective in Brussels if it focused on making a more
strategic, selective and targeted contribution to EU policy processes. This requires a good
national assessment framework and a clear agenda of what the Netherlands wishes to
achieve through the EU. Operate proactively and take into account the specific Brussels
playing field. Also reinforce the Dutch input in the phase of fleshing out EU STI
instruments so that they are better aligned with the Dutch policy and agenda.
Recommendation 3: Continue to support basic research in the EU and link it more
effectively to innovation
The Netherlands should continue to provide generous support for basic research within
the EU STI policy and should advocate strengthening the links between basic research
and (the instruments for) the practical application of knowledge where relevant.
Recommendation 4: Create regional links with EU STI policy
To enable the regions to make better use of the opportunities offered by EU policy and to
ensure that regional and EU policy reinforce or complement each other, it is important to:
a)     take account of relevant EU policy in the regional innovation agenda;
b)     spend the regional EU funds in such a way that they reinforce other STI policy;
c)     help regional actors to make use of EU instruments;
d)     link regional ecosystems to promote inter-European collaboration.
Recommendation 5: Provide support in making use of EU instruments
Ensure that Dutch actors such as knowledge institutes and companies are able to make
maximum use of the possibilities offered by EU instruments for STI, by ensuring well-
organised support. Focus government support on those actors which (still) have more
difficulty accessing EU instruments (such as universities of applied sciences and SMEs).
Apart from support with applications, this also means support in growing these actors’
relevant networks.
Recommendation 6: Safeguard opportunities for collaboration with attractive non-
EU partners
The Netherlands must make efforts to keep open opportunities for collaboration with
partners from Israel, the United Kingdom and Switzerland within the EU STI programmes.
If this fails at any point, the Netherlands must work on bilateral options for collaboration
where this offers clear added value.
Strategic interplay                                                                          6
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 8 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 9 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                                1
1 Background and request for advice
  1.1 Research and innovation of strategic importance for the
  EU
  Marked changes are taking place on the world stage as regards the position of science,
  technology and innovation (STI). Several countries are making great efforts to gather new
  knowledge and make technological advances in order to strengthen their own position.
  The United States and China are good examples. These geopolitical trends are putting
  pressure on the openness which has long characterised EU policy on STI. Where for
  many years the EU credo was ‘open innovation, open science, open to the world’,1
  attention in European policy is now turning more towards ‘open strategic autonomy’ as a
  policy objective.2 One of the underlying aims of the current EU Horizon Europe
  Framework Programme is to promote the strategic autonomy of the EU by stimulating
  innovation and research in emerging and key technologies such as Artificial Intelligence
  and micro/nanotechnology.3 Another example is the proposal for a European Chips Act
  aimed at making the European semiconductor industry a world leader.4 The recent New
  European Innovation Agenda also embodies the ambition of garnering a solid and leading
  position for the EU in the field of ‘deep tech’.5
  At the same time, EU policy on STI has expanded steadily, and this has also led to a
  number of shifts over time.6 Where European support for research originally (i.e. in the
  1980s) focused on pre-competitive research in international collaboration to foster
  1. European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (2016), Open
       innovation, open science, open to the world: a vision for Europe, Publications Office of the EU.
  2. European Commission (2021a), Communication of the European Commission on the Global
       Approach to Research and Innovation - Europe's strategy for international cooperation in a
       changing world, Brussels, 18.05.2021, COM(2021) 252 final.
  3. European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (2020), Strategic Plan
       2020-2024; and: European Commission (2022c), Key enabling technologies policy, website:
       https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/research-area/industrial-research-and-
       innovation/key-enabling-technologies_en.
  4. European Commission (2022a), Chips Act for Europe, Brussels, 08.02.2022, COM(2022) 45
       final. See also Council conclusions of 1 December 2022 at
       https://www.consilium.europa.eu/nl/meetings/compet/2022/12/01/
  5. European Commission (2022b), A New European Innovation Agenda, 05.07.2022 COM(2022)
       332 final. See also the Council conclusions of 2 December 2022 at
       https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2022/12/02/new-innovation-agenda-
       council-adopts-conclusions/.
  6. For a comprehensive overview of the development of the European Framework Programmes in
       support of research and innovation, see: Reillon, V. (2017), EU framework programmes for
       research and innovation. Evolution and key data from FP1 to Horizon 2020 in view of FP9,
       Brussels: European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS).
  Strategic interplay                                                                                   7
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 9 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 10 ======================================================================

<pre>industrial development, in later years more and more other research and innovation
activities also gradually became eligible for support. The goals were also broadened, with
more attention for meeting societal needs and challenges.7 Support also became
available for individual beneficiaries, such as researchers (initially through the ‘Marie
Skłodowska-Curie Actions’ from 1996, and the European Research Council from 2007)
and companies (through instruments targeting the SME sector). In the most recent
(completed) Framework Programme, Horizon 2020, roughly a third of the budget was
earmarked for individual beneficiaries (the rest for collaboration).
Most EU policy on STI has traditionally focused on specific themes or sectors 8 but,
particularly in recent decades, attention has been growing for generic support for
research and innovation.9 The two top priorities of the European Commission in the
current EU policy on STI, namely the Green Deal and digitalisation,10 set a clear direction
for initiatives such as the New Industrial Strategy for Europe11 or the Strategic Plan for
Horizon Europe 2021-2024.12 The focus is shifting away from ‘smart, sustainable and
inclusive growth’ towards a growing emphasis on the sustainable and digital transition,
and this is finding its way into EU policy on research and innovation. At the same time,
there is a steadily growing emphasis on strengthening the competitiveness of European
industry and avoiding new dependencies after the transition.13 Some policy instruments
are linked to the substantive ambitions of the EU policy for the different sectors or
themes: this is ‘specific’ policy. There are also a (smaller) number of generic instruments.
The balance between specific and generic policy is a continual source of debate, as is the
question of which kinds of activities should receive support from the EU STI policy. It is
important that the EU maintains a strong knowledge base, but at the same time it is noted
7. From the Fifth Framework Programme (1999) onwards, societal needs/challenges have been an
     explicit goal of each Programme; see e.g.: Reillon (2017).
8. In the first Framework Programme, around 85% of the budget was 'thematic'; this proportion
     subsequently reduced in stages until it reached 60% in the (eighth) Framework Programme,
     Horizon 2020; see e.g.: Reillon (2017).
9. The biggest generic instrument is the European Research Council, which accounted for 17% of
     the Framework Programme budget in Horizon 2020; see e.g.: Reillon (2017).
10. U. von der Leyen (2020), Political guidelines for the next European Commission 2019-2024;
     Opening statement in the European Parliament plenary session 15 July 2019; Speech in the
     European Parliament plenary session 27 November 2019. Luxembourg: Publications Office of
     the European Union.
11. European Commission (2020a), A New Industrial Strategy for Europe, Brussels, 10.3.2020,
     COM(2020) 102 final; European Commission (2020b). Updating the 2020 New Industrial
     Strategy: Building a stronger Single Market for Europe’s recovery, Brussels, 5.5.2021,
     COM(2021) 350 final.
12. European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (2021a), Horizon
     Europe Strategic Plan (2021-2024).
13. U. von der Leyen (2023), ‘Special Address by President von der Leyen at the World Economic
     Forum’, 17 January 2023,
     https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/speech_23_232
Strategic interplay                                                                            8
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 10 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 11 ======================================================================

<pre>that Europe is lagging behind in the successful commercialisation of that knowledge. To
what extent should the EU (seek to) play a role in upscaling innovation or in the growth of
start-ups?
The EU has become a highly relevant source of funding for STI in the Netherlands: the
funding received from the European Framework Programme Horizon 2020 accounted for
more than 10% of total Dutch public research funding.14 The EU support programmes for
research and innovation have also contributed to collaboration within Europe, the setting
of an EU-wide standard for excellent research and the application of knowledge in
addressing societal needs and challenges.
The Netherlands receives structurally more from the EU framework programmes in
support of STI than it contributes to them. However, there are no guarantees that this will
continue to be the case in the future. Brexit has meant that the successful United
Kingdom has disappeared from the EU and its funding arrangements, and as a result it is
now more noticeable that the Netherlands is also a significant net beneficiary. Other
countries, for example from Central and Eastern Europe or large Member States such as
France and Germany (which receive relatively little EU funding on a per capita basis)15
are focusing increasingly on these European funds, and that too is putting the relatively
large share of funding received by the Netherlands under pressure.
Apart from the financial contribution from EU programmes to research and innovation in
the Netherlands, there is also the crucial question of to what extent EU STI policy
contributes to the realisation of the ambitions of the EU and the Netherlands,
respectively. Does EU policy on STI, in tandem with Dutch national policy, contribute to
those underlying ambitions in practice? On the one hand the EU, like the Netherlands,
aims for excellence in science in view of the importance of a strong European knowledge
base. On the other hand, STI itself is also expected to make a useful contribution – via
various applications of the knowledge gained – to meeting societal challenges. And what
is the relationship between EU policy, most of which is targeted and strategic in nature,
and Dutch STI policy, which has by contrast long been predominantly generic and open?
These questions are very topical. The Dutch Advisory Council on International Affairs
(AIV) recently drew attention to this dichotomy in the context of industrial policy.16
Additionally, in ‘Brussels’, the first steps are currently being taken towards the next EU
framework programme for STI.
14. Rathenau Instituut (2022a), Nederland en Horizon 2020, reference date 4 April 2022.
15. IDEA Consult (2023), Nederland in Horizon 2020. Een kwantitatieve analyse voor de AWTI, Den
     Haag: AWTI. See also: Rathenau Instituut (2022), Wetenschap in Cijfers. Europese financiering.
     Accessed at: https://www.rathenau.nl/nl/wetenschap-cijfers/geld/europese-financiering.
16. AIV (2022), Designing smart industrial policy: new departures for the Netherlands within the EU.
Strategic interplay                                                                                  9
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 11 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 12 ======================================================================

<pre>1.2 Request for advice
Against the backdrop of the aforementioned geopolitical shifts and changes within the
EU, both of which have an impact on European STI policy and its alignment with Dutch
policy on science, technology and innovation, the Dutch government asked AWTI to
address the following question:17
How can the Netherlands make optimum use of European STI policy in order to
strengthen the impact of science, technology and innovation within and from the
Netherlands?
In answering this question, the Council took the Dutch ambitions for the development of
science, technology and innovation as a starting point, and looked at European policy
and developments from this perspective: to what extent does EU policy on STI contribute
to the realisation of the ambitions? And how might the Netherlands influence EU policy in
order to bring it more into line with Dutch ambitions? What recommendations can the
Council make for policy and practice in the Netherlands, at both national and regional
level, to ensure that European and Dutch policy are mutually reinforcing and together
contribute to the realisation of the ambitions for STI? A related question is how the
Netherlands can contribute to the common European ambitions for STI; here we look at
the entire spectrum of research, development and innovation, with the goal being that
European and national policy complement or reinforce each other as much as possible.
The government also lists a number of specific focus areas18 in its request for advice:
1.      The relationship between support for fundamental research on the one hand and its
        application and upscaling within EU STI policy on the other.
2.      The growing influence of European sectoral and thematic policy priorities on (the
        detailed content of) European STI policy.19
3.      The role that (regional) research and development ecosystems could play in
        strengthening the research and innovation capacity in countries/regions which
        currently lag behind in this regard.
17. See Appendix 1 for the Request for Advice received by AWTI from the Minister of Education,
     Culture and Science, partly on behalf of the Minister of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy.
18. See Appendix 1.
19. This development applies especially for the transition from Horizon 2020 to Horizon Europe. The
     share of ‘thematic and sectoral’ content has been falling across the entire history of the
     framework programmes; see Reillon (2017).
Strategic interplay                                                                                10
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 12 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 13 ======================================================================

<pre>1.3 Approach taken in this advisory report
In compiling this advisory report, we first mapped the most relevant EU programmes that
impinge on science, technology and innovation. A key programme here is the European
Framework Programme for Research and Innovation. For the most recently ended
Framework Programme, Horizon 2020, we commissioned a more detailed study of how
Dutch actors (such as knowledge institutes, companies, public authorities and other
organisations) made use of that programme. The results are set out in a background
study for this report (Nederland in Horizon 2020 (‘The Netherlands in Horizon 2020’)),20
and the principal findings are incorporated in Chapter 2 of this report. We also held many
discussions and carried out a literature review to gain an impression of how well aligned
Dutch and European science, technology and innovation policy are. A list of interviewees
can be found in Appendix 3. We also looked at a number of instructive examples from
other countries.
Chapter 2 first describes EU STI policy (section 2.1). We then zoom in on the extent to
which Dutch actors are able to make use of the possibilities offered by EU policy, and
highlight the main findings from our background study (section 2.2). In section 2.3 we
explore how much EU STI policy and the activities it promotes contribute to the
underlying policy ambitions at both EU and Dutch national level, as well as how well
aligned EU and national STI policy are. The chapter ends with conclusions in section 2.4.
Chapter 3 sets out our advice and derived recommendations.
Project group and reviewers
   This report was prepared by a project group consisting of Council members Koenraad
   Debackere (chair), Jos Benschop and Chokri Mousaoui and staff members Hamilcar
   Knops (secretary), Bart Gulden, Justien Dingelstad, Jeffrey de Hoogen, Ottilie
   Nieuwenhuis and Paul van der Sande.
In the final phase of compiling this advisory report, the draft report was submitted to two
external reviewers (see Appendix 2), who were asked to reflect on the consistency of the
draft and identify any gaps. Their comments were subsequently incorporated into the final
version under the responsibility of the Council.
20. IDEA Consult (2023), Nederland in Horizon 2020. Een kwantitatieve analyse voor de AWTI, Den
     Haag: AWTI.
Strategic interplay                                                                           11
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 13 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 14 ======================================================================

<pre>Strategic interplay 12</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 14 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 15 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                              2
2 Analysis
  2.1 Growing importance of EU policy for STI
  2.1.1 European STI policy is growing in volume and scope
  EU policy on science, technology and innovation matters. It has evolved from joint
  programmes to support industrial development in specific sectors (such as ICT) through
  pre-competitive research carried out in international collaboration. After the creation of the
  European Union (Treaty of Maastricht) and the expansion of its remit (e.g. in the Treaty of
  Amsterdam), an independent and ever broader EU research and innovation policy
  developed, which has been growing steadily ever since. The framework programmes
  continue to provide the most important context for this development. An important
  element of these programmes has developed over the last 15 years focusing on the
  generic underpinning of support of excellent research.
  The European programmes focusing on STI have made a clear contribution to raising
  standards in the EU, regularly lifting them above national standards. The Netherlands has
  made good use of the opportunities offered by Europe, and continues to do so. At the
  same time, EU STI policy has also fostered international STI collaboration within and
  beyond the EU, enabling the fruits of international synergy to be plucked.
  Growing budget
  European STI policy is growing - in terms of the number of policy instruments, scope,
  budget and the number of participating countries. Traditionally, the principal instruments
  for STI have been the EU framework programmes.21 The budget for these programmes
  has grown steadily.22 The budget for Horizon 2020 (which ran from 2014 to 2020) was 77
  billion euros; the budget for the current Horizon Europe Framework Programme (2021-
  2027) is 95.5 billion euros. EU programmes have accordingly become a very relevant
  source of funding for STI in the Netherlands, accounting for more than 10% of public
  research funding.23 As well as the framework programmes for STI, other EU policy
  21. Article 182 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
  22. The first six Framework Programmes (FPs) each ran for around four years and were assigned
       budgets of EUR 3.8 billion (FP1), EUR 5.4 billion (FP2), EUR 6.6 billion (FP3), EUR 11.8 billion
       (FP4), EUR 13.7 billion (FP5 and EUR 17.9 billion (FP6). For subsequent programmes, the term
       was increased to seven years and the budgets also rose, to EUR 50 billion (FP7), EUR 77 billion
       (FP8 (Horizon 2020’)), and EUR 95.5 billion (FP9 (‘Horizon Europe’). (The figures for FP1 – FP8
       were taken from Reillon (2017)).
  23. Rathenau Instituut (2022b), De financiering uit EU-kaderprogramma’s, reference date 8 April
       2022.
  Strategic interplay                                                                                   13
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 15 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 16 ======================================================================

<pre>instruments have emerged over time which are relevant for research and innovation. That
too represents a steady increase EU in funding to support STI.
Attention for applications and innovation as well as basic research
As well as this financial growth, the scope of the policy (and thus of the parties involved)
is also increasing. European support for research and innovation initially focused on pre-
competitive research, but over time this has broadened out to encompass all phases of
the research, development and innovation ‘chain’, and now covers not only basic
research, but also areas such as applied research, innovative start-ups and scale-ups.
This reflects the growing focus by the EU on the entire ‘chain’, based on the realisation
that EU countries, whilst strong in terms of developing knowledge, are relatively less
successful in commercialising that knowledge at sufficient scale.24 For example, Horizon
2020 included a separate ‘SME instrument’ which targeted the development and
expansion of (innovative) SMEs,25 an initiative which has transitioned in Horizon Europe
into the EIC Accelerator.26 This is an instrument in the third pillar of Horizon Europe,
alongside ambitions such as upscaling. In contrast with this movement, the European
Research Council (ERC) has since the seventh Framework Programme built a very solid
instrument which provides generic support for excellent (basic) research.
EU enlargement means more and more countries involved
The enlargement of the EU in recent years means that the number of countries targeted
by EU STI policy has also increased. To ensure that these new Member States align with
the research and innovation ‘standard’ within the EU, the ‘Widening participation and
spreading excellence’ programme was created with the aim of contributing to building
research and development capacity in countries which lag behind in this area.27 There
are also a number of structural funds and other programmes aimed at reducing the
welfare differentials between the regions and Member States, for example the European
Regional Development Fund (ERDF)28 and Interreg. These funds are intended among
other things to improve economic competitiveness by stimulating innovation. This focus
24. See also: European Commission (2022b), A New European Innovation Agenda, 5 July 2022
     COM(2022) 332 final.
25. European Commission (2022e), Horizon 2020 Online Manual. Accessed at:
     https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/docs/h2020-funding-guide/cross-cutting-
     issues/sme_en.htm
26. European Innovation Council (2022), EIC Funding Opportunities.
27. The countries concerned are Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Croatia, Latvia,
     Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia and the Czech Republic. See
     also: https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/horizon/wp-
     call/2021-2022/wp-11-widening-participation-and-strengthening-the-european-research-
     area_horizon-2021-2022_en.pdf.
28. Article 176 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
Strategic interplay                                                                              14
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 16 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 17 ======================================================================

<pre>on providing a stimulus for lagging Member States and regions lends European STI policy
not only a more thematic, but also a geographical and broader dimension.
2.1.2 European STI policy: both generic and specific
The first European programmes for (supporting) research had a sectoral or thematic
focus. This tied in with the principle set out in a general Treaty article which allowed EEC
Member States to decide unanimously to take actions on behalf of the common market.29
The first Framework Programme (1984-1987) thus contained six thematic priorities and
one ‘horizontal’ objective.30 The scope of the EC’s competence subsequently expanded
to cover all research activities which supported an EC/EU objective.31 Later still, the
scope widened further to include societal challenges as an objective. The framework
programmes were also firmly embedded in the Treaty.32
The Seventh Framework Programme (FP7), which launched in 2007, provided a major
new instrument, the European Research Council (ERC), whose mission is to promote and
provide generic support for excellent research. It stood alongside an existing powerful
generic instrument, the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions, which aimed to promote career
development for researchers. The EU saw these instruments as a means of
strengthening the position of the EU in basic research, in part relative to countries such
as the United States. Besides this generic support for STI, most EU framework
programmes still focus(ed) on specific goals (thematic or sectoral). A key feature is the
EU’s desire to promote research throughout the entire ‘chain’, from basic research to
application and roll-out.
Framework programme still more linked to ‘substantive’ ambitions
The deployment of STI is increasingly linked to the sectoral policy of the EU.33 The
current European Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, Horizon Europe,
for example, incorporates a range of ambitions. The stated aims of the Strategic Plan
contained in the Framework Programme include promoting ‘open strategic autonomy’,
restoring European ecosystems and biodiversity, making Europe the first digitally
29. Artcle 235 of the Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community (Treaty of Rome), see:
     https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/treaty/teec/sign.
30. Reillon (2017).
31. Article 130f, paragraph 1 of the EC Treaty stated the following in 1993: “The [European]
     Community shall have the objective of strengthening the scientific and technological bases of
     Community industry and encouraging it to become more competitive at international level, while
     promoting all the research activities deemed necessary by virtue of other Chapters of this
     Treaty.”
32. Currently in Article 182 TFEU.
33. Cf. European Commission (2022b), A New European Innovation Agenda. COM(2022) 332 final.
Strategic interplay                                                                                15
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 17 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 18 ======================================================================

<pre>supported climate-neutral, sustainable economy, and creating a more resilient, more
inclusive Europe, as driving factors behind European innovation policy.34
EU policy on STI incorporates a mix of instruments, from generic to specific
These ambitions are reflected in various ways in the design of the different pillars within
Horizon Europe, the current EU framework programme.35 In addition to a first pillar aimed
at excellent science in a broad sense, the second pillar focuses on societal challenges
such as health, climate and the digital transition. The EU opts for a mission-driven
approach here, formulating five mission areas with ambitious goals: 1) Adaptation to
climate change; 2) Cancer: saving more than three million lives; 3) Healthy Oceans,
Seas, Coastal and Inland Waters; 4) Climate-Neutral and Smart Cities; and 5) Soil Health
and Food. The second pillar also supports industrial competitiveness, including through
partnerships.36 This second pillar is thematic and combines the second and third pillars
from Horizon 2020. Innovation plays a key role in the third pillar of Horizon Europe, partly
through the formation of a European Innovation Council, and among other things
supports scaling up and radical innovation against the backdrop of the supporting
ecosystems.
Link to industrial policy and regional policy
There is also alignment with the EU’s industrial policy, with a key role assigned to a
number of specific ‘key technologies’, where linkage is sought with Horizon Europe.37
There are also other policy instruments outside the framework programme which benefit
STI; for example, ERDF funding is used in the Netherlands to support innovation, though
as the European Commission itself states, there is still a great deal of potential to exploit
the synergies between Horizon Europe and the ERDF.38 The EU rules on state aid also
allow for the establishment of Important Projects of Common European Interest
(IPCEIs).39 These are integrated European projects which bring together several national,
industry or research-institute projects from different EU Member States which are
complementary, have potential synergy and contribute to strategic European goals. 40 An
IPCEI must have the potential to resolve market or systemic shortcomings or societal
34. European Commission (2021b), Horizon Europe. Strategic Plan 2021-2024.
35. Regulation (EU) 2021/695 of 28 April 2021 establishing Horizon Europe – the Framework
     Programme for Research and Innovation, laying down its rules for participation and
     dissemination, OJEU 2021 L 170/1.
36. See e.g. European Commission (2022d), European Partnerships in Horizon Europe.
37. European Commission (2022c), Key enabling technologies policy; see also: AWTI (2020). A
     more forceful choice for key technologies, The Hague.
38. European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (2022), Synergies
     between Horizon Europe and ERDF programmes (Draft Commission Notice). C(2022), C 4747
     final.
39. See Article 107, 3 (b), TFEU.
40. RVO (2021), Important Project of Common European Interest (IPCEI). The synergies include the
     creation of regional value chains as part of the open strategic autonomy.
Strategic interplay                                                                            16
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 18 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 19 ======================================================================

<pre>challenges which the market alone would be unable to address. Member States can fund
the ‘unprofitable top slice’, i.e. that portion of the investment which cannot be earned
back, without the EU regarding this as prohibited state aid. Although IPCEIs are an
opportunity created by the EU, they must be implemented by collaborating Member
States who invest national funds in the project.
Knowledge also important in large EU initiatives
Knowledge and innovation are also key factors in the attempts in recent years to give a
major boost to the (competitive) position of the EU as a whole, for example through the
InvestEU investment programme or Next Generation EU, the EU recovery plan for the
post-Covid era, with a blended funding approach combining grants, loans and capital
which can be provided to enterprises to help scale up their activities.
Conclusion: EU policy on STI is intertwined with the EU policy agenda
European STI policy, then, is steadily expanding and the policy instruments now cover
the entire innovation trajectory. The content of EU STI policy is also no longer determined
(and funded) solely by the Directorate-General for Research & Development, but is now
combined with European industrial strategy or regional goals which the EU wishes to
pursue. EU STI policy has thus become a mix of specific policy, aimed either at meeting a
particular challenge (‘thematic’) or at a specific sector/technology (‘sectoral’), as well as
generic policy. A substantial part of EU STI policy is linked to a substantive direction. The
growth in EU funding for STI is therefore not ‘free’ funding, but is tied to a growing
number of conditions attached to its use.
2.1.3 Challenges
European STI policy is important for the EU and for the Netherlands. It contributes to the
‘knowledge power’ of Europe, and therefore also to the position of the Netherlands in the
world. European policy promotes STI collaboration in Europe, in turn benefiting Dutch
knowledge institutes and businesses. It also supports the thematic policy ambitions, for
example in relation to the numerous societal challenges facing the EU and the
Netherlands.
Nonetheless, seen from a Dutch perspective there are a number of challenges for
European STI policy. The first concerns what the relationship should be in EU policy
between basic and more applied research, innovation and market-focused instruments
(such as investment funds). The second relates to the fact that the Netherlands has a
culture of pursuing mainly generic policy to support research and innovation. The
question then is how the Netherlands should address the evolution towards more specific
and more targeted EU policy. Third, how can the EU and the Netherlands ensure that the
newer Member States are included in (the successes of) EU policy on STI?
Strategic interplay                                                                           17
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 19 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 20 ======================================================================

<pre>2.2 Dutch actors benefit from EU STI policy
Dutch knowledge institutes and companies have made good use over the years of the
support offered by EU policy for research and innovation. In preparing this advisory
report, AWTI commissioned a more detailed analysis of how Dutch actors participated in
the most recently completed framework programme, The results are contained in the
background study Nederland in Horizon 2020 (‘The Netherlands in Horizon 2020’),
compiled by IDEA.41 A benchmark was also developed with a number of comparable
regions in the EU,42 which are compared with the four Dutch NUTS-1 regions.43 The main
findings from the IDEA report are discussed below. Unless stated otherwise, all figures
cited in this section about Horizon 2020 are in principle taken from this background study.
2.2.1 Horizon 2020
Horizon 2020 was the eighth EU framework programme for research and innovation.44 it
ran from 2014 to 2020 inclusive and had a budget of around EUR 77 billion. Most of the
funding was assigned to three ‘pillars’: (1) Excellent Science (EUR 24 billion); (2)
Industrial Leadership (EUR 17 billion); and (3) Societal Challenges (EUR 31 billion).
Horizon 2020 also included a number of ‘horizontal’ programmes with smaller budgets.
The Netherlands made above-average use of Horizon 2020
Dutch participants obtained funding totalling EUR 5.37 billion from 6,149 projects under
Horizon 2020, equivalent to 7.9% of the total Horizon 2020 budget (and almost twice the
Dutch share of the EU budget of 4.1%). Dutch applicants have a relatively high success
rate, with 16.9% of applications approved compared with an EU average of 12.4%.45 Of
all the proposals involving a Dutch participant, 61% were good enough to be eligible in
principle for funding (i.e. the proposal assessed was ‘above the threshold value’). That is
higher than the average across the EU (around 50%). Only around a quarter of those
proposals ‘above the threshold value’ ultimately actually received funding (due to
budgetary constraints);46 that means that three out of four ‘good quality’ proposals were
41. IDEA Consult (2023), Nederland in Horizon 2020. Een kwantitatieve analyse voor de AWTI, Den
     Haag: AWTI. This report takes the data from the IDEA report as a basis.
42. The benchmark regions are Estonia, the five German regions Oberbayern (Upper Bavaria),
     Baden-Württemberg, Nordrhein-Westfalen (North Rhine-Westphalia), Koblenz and Lüneburg,
     Sydsverige (Sweden), Flanders (Belgium), Basque Country (Spain) and Eastern Austria.
43.The four NUTS-1 regions are Northern Netherlands (Friesland, Groningen and Drenthe); Eastern
     Netherlands (Overijssel, Gelderland and Flevoland); Southern Netherlands (Noord-Brabant and
     Limburg); and Western Netherlands (Noord-Holland, Zuid-Holland, Utrecht and Zeeland).
44. Framework programme as referred to in Article 182 TFEU.
45. See Figure 4 (p. 27).
46. 27.5% of proposals involving a Dutch actor were assessed as above the threshold value; the
     average across the EU is 24.9%. For the differences per pillar and per theme, see IDEA Consult
     (2023), Nederland in Horizon 2020.
Strategic interplay                                                                              18
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 20 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 21 ======================================================================

<pre>not successful, while five out of six of the total proposals submitted involving a Dutch
participant were not successful (and across the EU seven out of eight). In other words, a
great deal of energy is expended in preparing these project proposals.
The relative success of Dutch applicants in obtaining funding from Horizon 2020 is also
evident from the benchmark analyses performed in the background study for this report,
the results of which are shown in Figure 1. The figure shows the number of successful
participations per 100,000 residents. The Basque Country in Spain is the most successful
of the benchmark regions, with 109 participants in Horizon 2020 projects per 100,000
inhabitants. Next comes the German region of Oberbayern, with 86 participants, followed
by Western Netherlands (82) and Eastern Austria (78). The figure for the Netherlands as
a whole (64 participations per 100,000 inhabitants) is just below that of Estonia (68) and
just above Flanders (56), but strikingly enough is much higher than the number for the
German federal state of North Rhine-Westphalia, which is comparable with the
Netherlands in terms of population size. In the charts comparing the Netherlands and the
four Dutch NUTS-1 regions with the benchmark regions, the regions are ranked based on
their ‘score’ on the European Regional Innovation Scoreboard 2021, or RIS score. This
regional innovation index measures the innovative capacity of a region: the higher the
score, the more innovative the region.47
   Good practice Basque Country: In our benchmark, the Basque Country performs
   very well – especially research institutes – not just in terms of number of projects and
   amount of funding, but also as regards the average number of Basque partners
   engaging in projects with Basque participation. This appears to be the result of
   specific policy in the Basque Country. As well as the creation of Tecnalia, a strong
   organisation for applied research, there is the Basque Research & Technology
   Alliance (BRTA), in which 17 Basque applied research institutes collaborate
   intensively, including with a view to participation in EU projects.
   BRTA supports researchers and institutes in their positioning in European
   partnerships. It focuses on three elements: influencing the agenda for future
   programmes; giving training and advice to scientists; and providing specialist support
   with applications. It helps that the Basque policy priorities are chosen so that they
   parallel the European priorities as far as possible. Moreover, a performance-based
   funding system has been introduced for the participating organisations, with success
   in ‘Europe’ as one of the performance indicators.
47. European Commission (2021c), Regional Innovation Scoreboard 2021, Luxembourg.
Strategic interplay                                                                         19
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 21 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 22 ======================================================================

<pre>                        Number of Horizon 2020 participations per 100,000
                                                inhabitants
                 Oberbayern (174)                                                85,7
                  Sydsverige (163)                       39,5
    Baden-Württemberg (153)                             37,4
                     Flanders (150)                              56,2
 Southern Netherlands (144)                                  47,8
            Eastern Austria (139)                                          78,0
                 Netherlands (138)                                  63,9
  Western Netherlands (138)                                                   81,5
   Eastern Netherlands (132)                                   53,2
   Nordrhein-Westfalen (131)                     20,7
                      Estonia (129)                                   67,6
          Basque Country (119)                                                               109,2
 Northern Netherlands (118)                            35,9
                     Koblenz (113)     2,4
                    Lüneburg (105)      4,5
                                    0        20       40        60        80         100      120
Figure 1 Number of successful participations in Horizon 2020 per 100,000 residents for
                the Netherlands, the Dutch regions and the benchmark regions; the regions are
                ranked by their RIS score for 2021 (between brackets)48
Source: EU-Cordis Horizon 2020 database of funded projects 2014-2020
The Netherlands was successful not only in terms of the number of project applications
granted, but also as regards funding. On a per capita basis, the Netherlands received
funding totalling EUR 309 from Horizon 2020.49 That is high compared with the larger EU
Member States (Germany, France, Italy and Spain plus the United Kingdom received
between EUR 95 and EUR 135 per capita). Among the top 15 countries in terms of total
funding received from Horizon 2020, only Norway received more per capita (EUR 317).
Denmark came in third place with EUR 304 per capita). Figure 2 shows the picture from
our benchmark; only the highly innovative Oberbayern region in Germany (EUR 531 per
capita) came ahead of the leading Western Netherlands region (EUR 403). Here again,
the Basque Country scores very well (EUR 396) - roughly three times the average for the
whole of Spain! Within the Netherlands, there are differences between the regions, with
Western Netherlands, where the majority of knowledge institutes are located, standing
out. Eastern Netherlands also received a fairly high level of funding, while Southern
Netherlands and Northern Netherlands received slightly less funding from Horizon 2020.
48. For these RIS scores, see: European Commission (2021c), Regional Innovation Scoreboard
     2021.
49. This refers to cumulative funding received from Horizon 2020 across the full term of the
     programme.
Strategic interplay                                                                                20
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 22 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 23 ======================================================================

<pre>This was largely due to the fact that these regions are home to relatively fewer knowledge
institutes.
                          Horizon 2020 funding (2014-2017) in EUR per inhabitant
                 Oberbayern (174)                                                      531
                  Sydsverige (163)                      205
   Baden-Württemberg (153)                             188
                     Flanders (150)                           261
 Southern Netherlands (144)                              211
           Eastern Austria (139)                                  305
                Netherlands (138)                                 309
  Western Netherlands (138)                                               403
   Eastern Netherlands (132)                                  260
  Nordrhein-Westfalen (131)                    100
                      Estonia (129)                     207
         Basque Country (119)                                            396
 Northern Netherlands (118)                          170
                     Koblenz (113)    5
                    Lüneburg (105)     11
                                    0      100      200       300      400      500        600
Figure 2 Horizon 2020 funding awarded per inhabitant (2014-2020, in EUR)
               for the Netherlands, the Dutch regions and the benchmark regions;
               the regions are ranked by their RIS score for 2021 (between brackets)
Source: EU-Cordis Horizon 2020 database of funded projects 2014-2020; population figures for
2020
   Good practice Norway: Although not a Member State of the EU, Norway is a
   member of the European Economic Area (EEA), and also participates in the Horizon
   2020 and Horizon Europe framework programmes. Calculated per head of the
   population, Norwegian partners secured more funding per participation in Horizon
   2020 than Dutch participants. To help in securing funding from Horizon 2020, the
   Norwegian Research Council had set up two programmes to increase Norwegian
   participation. One of these programmes (PES2020) focused on boosting the quality
   and number of project proposals submitted from Norway for Horizon projects, both
   through co-funding of the project proposal and support for the positioning of
   Norwegian actors and mobilisation of partners. In the other programme, STIM-EU,
   Norway gives extra funding to (Norwegian) participants in EU projects over and above
   the EU contribution, among other things by covering certain overhead costs.
Strategic interplay                                                                            21
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 23 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 24 ======================================================================

<pre>                                    Horizon 2020 funding per EUR million R&D expenditures
                    5,0%
 GERD as % of GDP
                    4,5%            IL
                    4,0%
                    3,5%             SE
                                        AT
                    3,0%       DE           FI
                                     CH DK
                    2,5%                   BE
                    2,0%            FR    EU27            NL
                                                     NO
                    1,5%                 UK     IT                  ES                           EL
                    1,0%
                    0,5%
                    0,0%
                           0        20.000    40.000       60.000        80.000   100.000   120.000   140.000
                                         Horizon 2020 funding (in EUR) per EUR million GERD (2014-2020)
Figure 3 Horizon 2020 funding awarded per EUR million GERD (2014-2020, in EUR)
         Top 15 countries with the highest total Horizon 2020 funding
Source: EU-Cordis Horizon 2020 database of funded projects 2014-2020.
        For source of GERD and GDP see IDEA (2023)
We also calculated what share of all investments (private and public) in research and
development (‘GERD’ in the terminology of the OECD)50 came from Horizon 2020 for the
top 15 recipient countries of Horizon 2020 funding. This is shown in Figure 3, with the
position on the y-axis representing the share of research and development expenditure
as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In the Netherlands, 4.7% of all
investments (private and public) in research and development came from Horizon 2020,
putting the Netherlands in third place among the top 15 recipient countries. Only the
Southern European countries Greece and Spain derived a higher percentage of their
research and development funding from the EU, but these countries also spend relatively
less on these activities. Based on the share taken by EU funding in total research and
development expenditure, the most successful of the benchmark regions are Estonia
(10%) and the Basque Country (9%). By way of comparison, only 3% of R&D funding in
Oberbayern came from Horizon 2020. It is also noteworthy that Dutch participants in
Horizon 2020 projects received more on average, both as project coordinators and as
50. GERD = ‘Gross domestic expenditure on R&D’, definied as the ‘total intramural expenditure on
    R&D performed in the national territory during a specific reference period’; see: OECD (2015),
    Frascati Manual 2015: Guidelines for Collecting and Reporting Data on Research and
    Experimental Development, The Measurement of Scientific, Technological and Innovation
    Activities, Paris: OECD Publishing, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264239012-en.
Strategic interplay                                                                                         22
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 24 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 25 ======================================================================

<pre>‘ordinary’ partners, than the average across the whole trajectory of the Horizon 2020
programme. In other words, Dutch actors are also relatively successful on a ‘per
participant’ basis.51
Universities and corporates are the main participants in EU projects; universities of
applied sciences and SMEs have more difficulty
The lion’s share of the funding for Dutch participants went to higher education institutions
(EUR 2.7 billion, 51%), followed by the private sector (EUR 1.3 billion, 24%) and research
organisations (EUR 1 billion, 18%). The remainder of the ‘Dutch’ funding went to public
bodies and other organisations (see Table 1). The main beneficiaries in higher education
were universities and university medical centres. Universities of applied sciences do not
occur in the top 15 higher education institutes in terms of funds received from Horizon
2020. And although in the ‘private sector’ category the number of unique Dutch SMEs
participating in Horizon 2020 projects is comparable with the European average as a
proportion of larger companies (81% and 78%, respectively), we heard from several
quarters that SMEs find it difficult to gain access to the opportunities offered by the EU.52
Our analysis also showed that relatively less use is made in the Netherlands of elements
of Horizon 2020 aimed at SMEs. For example, the Dutch share of the total budget for the
theme ‘Innovation in SMEs’ was 6.7%, compared with 7.9% across the whole Horizon
2020 programme.
Table 1 Distribution of Dutch Horizon 2020 funding across the five categories of actors
  Total                               Funding (EUR                  Share of           Number of
                                                billion                  total     participations
  Higher or secondary                             2.72                  50.6%                  4336
  education institutions
  Research organisations                          0.99                  18.4%                  1743
  Private sector                                  1.27                  23.5%                  3853
  Public bodies                                   0.15                   2.7%                   430
  Other                                           0,25                   4,7%                   758
51. See: IDEA Consult (2023), Nederland in Horizon 2020. Een kwantitatieve analyse voor de AWTI,
     Den Haag: AWTI.
52. SMEs do appear to derive a larger share of their research and development funding from EU
     instruments than large companies. In the Netherlands, roughly 33% of research and
     development expenditure by companies takes place within SMEs (see:
     https://www.rathenau.nl/nl/wetenschap-cijfers/geld/wat-geven-bedrijven-uit-aan-rd/rd-uitgaven-
     van-bedrijven-nederland-naar ), while 71% of Horizon 2020 funding for Dutch companies went to
     SMEs (source: own communication with Netherlands Enterprise Agency - RVO).
Strategic interplay                                                                                 23
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 25 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 26 ======================================================================

<pre>A few organisations made very frequent use of Horizon 2020: a total of 21 unique
participants from the Netherlands each participated successfully more than 100 times in
Horizon 2020 projects. However, most organisations took part in only one project (63% of
unique participants) or between two and five times (29% of unique participants).
Table 2 shows the top five Dutch organisations in each category in terms of funding
received from Horizon 2020.53 The biggest recipients are universities and applied
research organisations (Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research (TNO),
Wageningen Research). Each of these organisations participated in hundreds of Horizon
2020 projects.
Large organisations such as universities, TNO or large corporations often have a
dedicated internal employee or department to seek out EU support schemes, form the
right consortia and submit project proposals. In addition, the Netherlands Enterprise
Agency (RVO) also provides support, and the Enterprise Europe Network supports SMEs
in finding the right partners abroad.54
One factor which may explain the difficulty SMEs evidently have in participating
successfully in EU projects could be that most Horizon 2020 programmes were less
suitable for them because of the complexity of the application process, the requirement to
publish the results or the lack of an appropriate network. These factors can in fact also
impede large, R&D-intensive organisations in making use of EU instruments for STI, for
example because EU projects (must) have lots of different participants, whereas
companies may prefer to work bilaterally with one knowledge institute and might prefer
not to place the results of research in the public domain owing to its for their own
competitive position. A further factor for universities of applied sciences is that a
substantially smaller proportion of their activities is (currently) devoted to research.55 They
also have other sources of finance (for example national) from which they have a greater
chance of securing funding.
53. We used the different legal entities as they appear in the EU database (Cordis). We did not
     aggregate potentially affiliated legal entities, such as the different Philips companies (two of
     which are in the top five), or a university with an affiliated university medical centre, for example.
54. See: https://een.ec.europa.eu/
55. It would be interesting to discover what the share of EU funding is in the total research budgets
     of universities and universities of applied sciences. This would be a 'pure' comparison. We were
     unable to do this because the precise size of the research budgets is not known with certainty.
Strategic interplay                                                                                       24
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 26 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 27 ======================================================================

<pre>Table 2 Top-5 Horizon 2020 funding recipients in the Netherlands by category
                                             H2020 funding in Share within   Number of
        Actor
                                                 EUR million     category      projects
  Higher or secondary education institutions
  1 Delft University of Technology                      318.3       11.7%           538
  2 Utrecht University                                  237.9        8.7%           344
  3 University of Amsterdam                             206.0        7.6%           304
        Eindhoven University of
  4 Technology                                          195.7        7.2%           337
  5 Radboud University                                  185.1        6.8%           294
  Research organisations
  1 TNO                                                 178.2       18.0%           359
  2 GÉANT                                               153.3       15.5%            24
  3 Wageningen Research                                 132.0       13.3%           223
        Foundation for Dutch Scientific
  4 Research Institutes (NWO-i)                          94.4        9.5%           180
        Royal Netherlands Academy of
  5 Arts and Sciences (KNAW)                             70.4        7.1%           122
  Private sector
  1 ASML Netherlands BV                                  43.3        3.4%            11
  2 Philips Electronics Nederland BV                     31.4        2.5%            65
  3 Avantium Chemicals BV                                21.9        1.7%            22
  4 Philips Medical Systems NL BV                        18.9        1.5%            32
  5 Lanzatech BV                                         18.6        1.5%             1
  Public bodies
        National Institute for Public Health
  1 and the Environment (RIVM)                           33.1       22.6%            63
        Ministry of Economic Affairs and
  2 Climate Policy                                       18.9       12.9%            53
        Ministry of Infrastructure and
  3 Water Management                                     12.5        8.6%            45
  4 Municipality of Groningen                             6.4        4.4%            10
  5 Municipality of Amsterdam                             5.6        3.8%            14
  Other
  1 Climate KIC Holding BV                               38.3       15.1%             8
  2 EGI Foundation                                       26.2       10.4%            38
  3 NLnet Foundation                                     19.0        7.5%             3
  4 Lygature                                             10.9        4.3%            17
  5 Prosafe                                               6.9        2.7%             4
Strategic interplay                                                                    25
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 27 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 28 ======================================================================

<pre>Good success with ‘Excellent Science’ and ‘Societal Challenges’
if we look at the various pillars of Horizon 2020, we find that Dutch participants score very
well on ‘Excellent Science’ and ‘Societal Challenges’, with around 8.5% of the total
budget going to Dutch participants in each pillar. In the pillar ‘Industrial Leadership’, by
contrast, Dutch participants lagged behind, receiving 6.5% of the total budget – though
that is still a higher percentage than the Dutch contribution to the EU budget (4.1%).
Differences per theme
Zooming in more closely on the constituent programmes or themes, we find that Dutch
participants received the largest amount in absolute terms from the European Research
Council (ERC) (EUR 1.2 billion), followed by the societal challenge ‘health’ (EUR 0.8
billion; pillar 2) and the Marie Skłodowska Curie Actions (MSCA) (EUR 0.5 billion). The
ERC and MSCA were the biggest programmes in the ‘Excellent Science’ pillar. As
regards the ‘relative share’ of the funding, i.e. the share of ‘Dutch’ funding in total EU
funding, the Netherlands received the most funding for research infrastructures (13.5%,
first pillar) and the themes ‘health’ (13%) and ‘biotech’ (11%) in the second pillar.56
In terms of the success rate of Dutch applicants, there also are few themes which stand
out clearly above the EU average for that theme. The top three are biotech, environment
and food. The Dutch success rate in the biggest programme (ERC) is also roughly a third
higher than the EU average (18.1% versus 13.7%).
The success rates for each pillar in Horizon 2020 are shown in Figure 4. The figure
shows that, although the Netherlands ‘scores’ less on average in the pillar ‘Industrial
Leadership’ pillar in terms of the amount of funding received, the success rate for projects
involving Dutch actors within this pillar is much higher than the EU average (15.2%
versus 8.8%). There are moreover also themes within the ‘Industrial Leadership’ pillar
where the Netherlands is highly successful in terms of funding received. ICT stands out
here in an absolute sense, though in relative terms the Netherlands scores best on
‘biotechnology’, with a share of 11% of the total EU budget for this theme and a success
rate that is 2.5 times higher for applications involving a Dutch participant compared with
the EU average in this segment.
56. A detailed overview of the different themes can be found in IDEA Consult (2023), Nederland in
     Horizon 2020. Een kwantitatieve analyse voor de AWTI, Den Haag: AWTI.
Strategic interplay                                                                               26
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 28 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 29 ======================================================================

<pre>                                     Success rate per pillar within Horizon 2020
    25%
                                               19,9%
    20%                                                                  18,4%
                                                        16,5%                                      16,9%
                      16,0%        15,2%                             15,7%
               14,4%
    15%                                    12,4%             12,1%                            12,4%
    10%                        8,8%                                                     8,2%
                                                                                   6,4%
      5%
      0%
                1. Excellent 2. Industrial 3. Societal 4. Spreading 5. Science      6. Other    Horizon
                  Science      leadership challenges excellence for Society                      2020
                     All project applications              Project applications with a Dutch actor
Figure 4 Success rates per pillar within Horizon 2020 (2014-2020)
Source: EU-Cordis Horizon 2020 database for 2014-2020, number of project applications = 285,602
Western Netherlands the big winner, Southern Netherlands strong on industry
We looked at the four Dutch NUTS-1-regions (the regions into which the EU divides the
Netherlands for its regional policy): Northern, Eastern, Western and Southern
Netherlands.57 Western Netherlands, where roughly half of Dutch universities are based,
participated most in Horizon 2020 in absolute terms, and also received the highest
funding per capita, namely EUR 400 (compared with the national average of EUR 309).58
Figure 5 shows the distribution of Horizon 2020 funds received per pillar per region (the
benchmark regions and the Dutch NUTS-1 regions). It is interesting that in Northern and
Western Netherlands, the lion’s share of the funding received falls within the ‘Excellent
Science’ pillar (52% and 44%, respectively), while in Eastern Netherlands the biggest
slice of funding was in the ‘Societal Challenges’ pillar (49%). Southern Netherlands
received the most funding in the ‘Industrial Leadership’ pillar (37%). This distribution
reflects the regional differences, with Southern Netherlands as an industrial heartland
housing Brainport Eindhoven, for example, while Eastern Netherlands, with its
universities such as Wageningen and Twente, has a solid tradition of research (in
partnership with companies and other organisations) focusing on societal challenges.
Similar differences can also be seen in the benchmark regions (see Figure 5).
57. Northern Netherlands incorporates the provinces of Groningen, Friesland and Drenthe; Eastern
     Netherlands the provinces of Overijssel, Gelderland and Flevoland; Western Netherlands the
     provinces of Noord-Holland, Zuid-Holland, Utrecht and Zeeland; and Southern Netherlands the
     provinces of Noord-Brabant and Limburg.
58. See Figure 2 on p. 21 for a list of the Dutch regions and benchmark regions.
Strategic interplay                                                                                      27
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 29 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 30 ======================================================================

<pre>                           Distribution of Horizon 2020 funding across the pillars
                 Oberbayern (174)             41%                 25%             26%             6%
                  Sydsverige (163)               52%                 14%            32%           2%
     Baden-Württemberg (153)                    47%                19%             29%            4%
                     Flanders (150)         34%               25%                39%
  Southern Netherlands (144)               31%                 37%                  30%
            Eastern Austria (139)              43%              15%             38%
                 Netherlands (138)            40%              17%              41%
   Western Netherlands (138)                   44%              12%            42%
    Eastern Netherlands (132)              32%             17%               49%
    Nordrhein-Westfalen (131)              32%              22%               42%                 3%
                      Estonia (129)    14%      18%                46%                 19%
           Basque Country (119)        16%            35%                    48%
   Northern Netherlands (118)                    52%                8%           39%
                     Koblenz (113)    12%       22%                     59%                 6%
                    Lüneburg (105)    11%               51%                    30%         9%
                                    0%        20%         40%        60%          80%        100%
            1. Excellent Science          2. Industrial leadership    3. Societal challenges
            4. Spreading excellence       5. Science for Society      6. Other
Figure 5 Distribution of Horizon 2020 funding across the pillars for the Netherlands, the
               Dutch regions and the benchmark regions; the regions are ranked by their RIS
               score for 2021 (between brackets)
Source: EU Cordis Horizon 2020 database of funded projects 2014-2020.
            For the RIS scores, see: European Commission (2021c)
Collaboration with other countries
One of the aims of European STI policy is to promote collaboration. Consequently, many
projects involve partners from different countries working together. Figure 6 shows the
partners with which the Netherlands collaborates frequently. The figure shows the
number of partners from the listed countries with which Dutch actors collaborate on
average in a single project that has more than one participant.59 Dutch actors work mainly
with partners from Germany, France, Spain, Italy and the United Kingdom. It is notable
that in the ‘Scientific Excellence’ pillar, Dutch partners frequently collaborate with
59. Since projects with only one participant do not have collaborating partners, these were filtered
     out of the sample for this analysis of partnerships.
Strategic interplay                                                                                  28
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 30 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 31 ======================================================================

<pre>knowledge institutes from the United Kingdom and Switzerland,60 making these two
countries key partners for the Netherlands. These countries participated in Horizon 2020,
but are not (or no longer) members of the European Union, and their participation in the
current Horizon Europe Framework Programme has still not been settled.61 If it transpires
that they are not able to participate, the Netherlands will lose a key means of forging
partnerships with the (often highly renowned) knowledge institutes from those countries.
Collaboration between Dutch and Belgian partners is most common in the ‘Societal
Challenges’ pillar. It is notable that in the partnerships with the United Kingdom, Ireland
and Denmark, the partners are often higher education institutes (universities).
                            Average number of partners per project
  2,5
            2,1
                  2,0
  2,0
                      1,5 1,5
                              1,4 1,4
  1,5
                                       1,0
  1,0
                                            0,5 0,5 0,5 0,4
  0,5                                                        0,4 0,3 0,3 0,3
                                                                             0,3 0,3
                                                                                     0,2 0,2 0,1
  0,0
            NL DE FR ES IT UK BE SE EL AT CH DK FI PT NO PL IE CZ HU RO
Figure 6 Average number of partners per country in successful projects with more than
               one participant and at least one Dutch participant, for the top 20 countries in
               Horizon 2020 (2014-2020)
Source: EU Cordis Horizon 2020 database of funded projects 2014-2020; total number of projects
            with more than one participant, one of which was Dutch = 4,694
Collaboration with UK has collapsed; that with other countries has grown
We compared collaboration in the first half of the term of Horizon 2020 with that in the
second half. Virtually across the board, Dutch parties collaborated more with partners
from other countries in the second half of Horizon 2020, especially with Greece, Spain
and Belgium. Dutch parties also collaborated more often with partners from the newer
60. See IDEA Consult (2023), Nederland in Horizon 2020. Een kwantitatieve analyse voor de AWTI,
     Den Haag: AWTI.
61. In February 2023, the United Kingdom and Switzerland were still in negotiations about potential
     associative membership of Horizon Europe. Both countries did provisionally provide their 'own'
     funding for domestic parties taking part in Horizon Europe projects.
Strategic interplay                                                                                 29
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 31 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 32 ======================================================================

<pre>eastern EU Member States. By contrast, collaboration with partners from the United
Kingdom fell sharply during the second half of the Horizon 2020 programme, possibly
because of uncertainty around the impact of Brexit.
Also collaboration between Dutch partners
In the 6,149 Horizon 2020 projects involving one or more Dutch participants, there were a
total of 11,120 participations from the Netherlands. This equates to an average of 1.81
Dutch participants per project with Dutch participation. That is high compared with the
benchmark regions (only the Basque Country comes anywhere near, at 1.69). If we look
at the Dutch NUTS-1 regions, the figure in Western Netherlands is still relatively high
(1.55 participants from Western Netherlands).62 The other regions are comparable with
the better-scoring benchmark regions (around 1.35 from the same region). It thus
appears that Dutch parties also work with other Dutch participants in European projects,
often from the same region. If we zoom in on those projects with Dutch participation in
which there was more than one participant (see Figure 6), we see that on average just
over two Dutch parties were involved in these projects.
Partners from ‘Romance’ countries less often work with Dutch coordinators
Coordination of EU projects in the Netherlands is often taken on by (higher) education
institutes. Strikingly, where a Dutch party acts as coordinator, partners from Spain, Italy
and France are less often represented, whereas Dutch parties do work on projects
coordinated from those countries.63 It is unclear whether Dutch coordinators are less
inclined to seek partners in Spain, France or Italy, or whether partners from those
countries are less keen to work with a Dutch coordinator.
62. This figure for the (Dutch) regions is probably lower than for the Netherlands as a whole, since
     we are concerned with the number of partners from the same region in a project involving at
     least one participant from that region. For the Netherlands as a whole, this is (also) the case
     where one party is from Delft (Western Netherlands) and one from Groningen (Northern
     Netherlands), but within a region it only applies if the partner of the participant from Delft is also
     from Western Netherlands.
63. See IDEA Consult (2023), Nederland in Horizon 2020. Een kwantitatieve analyse voor de AWTI,
     Den Haag: AWTI.
Strategic interplay                                                                                         30
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 32 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 33 ======================================================================

<pre>   Good practice Sweden: VINNOVA is a Swedish organisation with its own budget,
   which it coordinates through various programmes relating to collaboration, capacity-
   building and thematic research. VINNOVA has a clear role with regard to EU
   programmes, providing support for all European applications. In addition, VINNOVA not
   only has offices in Sweden, but also in Brussels, Silicon Valley and Tel Aviv. This
   means that VINNOVA can also help parties find the right partners outside Sweden (and
   also outside the EU). There is a special agency for the SME sector which supports
   and proactively helps Swedish SMEs to participate in European programmes. It does
   this through direct support (both one-to-one and through workshops), and via
   incubators and science parks.
Cooperation also outside EU projects
EU research and innovation programmes promote international collaboration, but
international collaboration also takes place outside the framework programmes and other
programmes. This was recently mapped by the Rathenau Instituut,64 which looked at joint
publications (by authors in the Netherlands in collaboration with authors from elsewhere)
in the period 2018-2021. This showed that most collaboration takes place with the United
States, the United Kingdom and Germany. We tried to estimate the impact of
collaboration within EU projects on the total collaboration between (partners from) the two
partner countries. To do this, we determined the relationship between the number of
partnerships within EU programmes on the one hand and the number of joint publications
by authors from the two partner countries on the other. The higher this ratio, the greater
we consider the influence of EU projects on collaboration between (partners from) the two
countries to be. This exercise appears to show a major impact of collaboration with Spain
and Greece, in particular, within Horizon 2020, and to a slightly lesser extent with Austria
and Norway. A European framework programme thus appears to have a decided positive
impact on collaboration with such countries.
2.2.2 Other EU instruments in support of STI
As well as framework programmes such as Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe,
investments in STI also reach Dutch parties through other programmes and funds, for
example the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). Compared with the less
developed regions in the EU, the Netherlands receives relatively little funding from this
structural fund. That is partly due to the design of the Fund, which focuses specifically on
helping less-developed regions to further their development. The ERDF funds which do
64. Rathenau Instituut (2022c), Samenwerkingslanden Nederland, reference date 02-09-2022.
Strategic interplay                                                                         31
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 33 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 34 ======================================================================

<pre>reach the Dutch regions have to be spent on innovation. Policy and fund distribution are
determined by the relevant regions themselves. They are required to develop a ‘smart
specialisation strategy’, in which they set out the specific targets for their region (matching
the strength and ambition of the region). There are four ERDF regions in the Netherlands:
Northern Netherlands, Eastern Netherlands, Western Netherlands and Southern
Netherlands. Each region has a management authority to administer the programme.65
The European Commission has also rolled out the more mission-driven, temporary Next
Generation EU programme. This provides funding with a clear objective and is focused in
part on innovation. Examples of funding available under this programme are the Just
Transition Fund (EUR 567 million to support the Dutch regions in achieving a climate-
neutral, circular economy) and the Recovery and Resilience Facility (a total of EUR 4.7
billion for the Netherlands, part of which is intended for sustainable and green recovery
following the Covid crisis). Another programme providing funding for STI is Interreg,
which focuses on cross-border regional collaboration. Here again, the funding is
distributed (and the policy developed) by the (inter)regional authorities.
IPCEIs (Important Projects of Common European Interest) are another instrument
deployed by the EU. They are large, ground-breaking projects involving partners from
different Member States. In an IPCEI, Member States are permitted to provide more
financial support to companies than the state aid rules would ‘normally’ allow. However,
the funding for such projects must come from the Member States concerned themselves;
the EU does not itself provide separate funding. Although the Netherlands is currently
involved in four such projects, finding the (national) budget to pay for them is difficult.66 As
a result, the Netherlands is by no means in the lead in exploiting the opportunities offered
by this instrument.
2.3 EU policy makes sub-optimal contribution to Dutch
ambitions
The EU is making increasing amounts of funding available to support STI, from which
Dutch actors are benefiting relatively well. Money alone is not the aim of STI policy,
however; the focus on STI is of course intended to achieve the underlying ambitions. The
65. For Northern Netherlands this is the Northern Netherlands Alliance ( (www.snn.nl/en), for
     Eastern Netherlands: EFRO Oost (https://www.efro-oost.eu/), for Western Netherlands: Kansen
     voor West (www.kansenvoorwest2.nl/nl/), and the programme for Southern Netherlands is
     ‘OPZuid’ (administered by Stimulus Programmamanagement: https://www.stimulus.nl/opzuid-
     2021-2027).
66. See also (in Dutch): Kamerbrief (Letter to the House of Representatives) Minister Adriaansens.
     Kamerbrief strategisch en groen industriebeleid. 8 July 2022 (ref. DGBI-TOP / 22266731),
     Kamerstukken II 2021-2022, 29 826, nr. 147.
Strategic interplay                                                                                32
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 34 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 35 ======================================================================

<pre>most important question is therefore to what extent the EU programmes for STI contribute
to the achievement of European or national ambitions.
Figure 7 Progress of Horizon 2020 against targets for the various pillars
Source: Figure 2.4 (Overview of all the Horizon 2020 indicators in the programme statement)
            European Court of Auditors (2020).67
67. European Court of Auditors (2020), Report of the European Court of Auditors on the
     performance of the EU budget — Status at the end of 2019, Luxembourg: Publications Office of
     the EU.
Strategic interplay                                                                             33
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 35 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 36 ======================================================================

<pre>European Court of Auditors critical on Societal Challenges pillar
The European Court of Auditors (ECA) looked at this at EU level. In 2019, the ECA
carried out a performance review which included the Horizon 2020 Framework
Programme. The results are shown in Figure 7. Briefly summarised, according to the
ECA, 14 indicators are ‘on track’, 17 are not on track and for 23 indicators it is unclear
whether they are on track. Strikingly, it is unclear for all indicators without quantified
targets whether or not they are on track. The clearest progress is in the ‘Excellent
Science’ pillar, for which four of the six indicators are green. On ‘Societal Challenges’,
however, 13 indicators are not on track; only one is on track and there are 16 for which it
is unclear. This is a pillar with a strong Dutch participation. The ECA is very critical
regarding whether the envisaged objectives are being achieved at EU level. The ECA
makes no pronouncement on the situation at the level of Member States, but if the ECA
feels that an indicator (at European level) is unclear (i.e. progress cannot be readily
determined), that will often also be the case at national level. This is a particular problem
in the ‘Societal Challenges’ pillar.
The ECA also makes several other interesting observations. The success rate in Horizon
2020 was just 12%, which means that many efforts to bring together partners and set up
proposals failed to bear fruit. The ‘Seal of Excellence’ for proposals which, though of
good quality, did not receive funding, also failed to have the envisaged effect: it is virtually
ignored in national programmes. The ECA also notes the difficulty in obtaining an
overview of all funding instruments for research and innovation, commenting that SMEs
face even more impediments in the application process or additional burdens in
implementation.
Do the EU programmes contribute to the achievement of Dutch STI ambitions?
The funding in Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe is distributed by the European
Commission in the context of the policy objectives at EU level. The European Court of
Auditors looked at this and concluded that it is unclear whether some (European) Horizon
2020 targets will be achieved. In this report we examine to what extent the deployment of
EU funds contributes to the achievement of Dutch targets and ambitions for STI.
Netherlands Court of Audit critical of insight into contribution of EU funding to Dutch
ambitions
The Netherlands Court of Audit recently investigated the extent to which EU funding
which is jointly administered by the EU and the Netherlands contributes to the Dutch
policy ambitions.68 The review did not include the European framework programmes
(Horizon), but did include funds such as the ERDF. Dutch recipients of EU grants report
68. Algemene Rekenkamer / Netherlands Court of Audit (2022), The Added Value of EU Grants in
     the Netherlands, Den Haag: October 2022.
Strategic interplay                                                                           34
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 36 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 37 ======================================================================

<pre>that they benefited from the monies received. They did find the administrative burden
onerous, however, and two-thirds brought in external support for the application. The
Netherlands Court of Audit is however highly critical of the added value of this EU funding
for the achievement of the Dutch ambitions (notwithstanding the fact that the Netherlands
is party to the decision on distribution). The link between the focus in the (national
implementation of) programmes and the underlying problems the programmes seek to
address is often unclear or poorly substantiated. Moreover, where indicators are used,
these are generally focused on output (achievements) rather than outcome (impact). The
studies by the European and Dutch Courts of Audit thus both reveal a limited insight into
the effectiveness of EU programmes and whether those programmes actually contribute
to resolving the underlying problems they seek to address.
Ambitions for ‘Excellent Science’ run parallel, but lack of clear coordination
When it comes to science and basic research, the ambitions of the Netherlands and
those in the ‘Excellent Science’ pillar in the framework programmes are reasonably in
parallel. The aim in both cases is the generic promotion of excellent science with a view
to boosting the position of Europe (or the Netherlands) as a knowledge power. However,
a few caveats can be applied to the implementation. In the Netherlands, the Dutch
Research Council (NWO) plays a key role by providing many individual grants to talented
researchers. How is the NWO policy ‘coordinated’ with what the European Research
Council is doing at European level in terms of individual grants?69 In addition, the
Netherlands does little or nothing with the ‘Seal of Excellence’ awarded by the EU to
research proposals which, whilst excellent, have been unable to secure EU funding due
to budgetary constraints.70
Lack of Dutch industrial policy impedes alignment with ‘Industrial Leadership’
The Netherlands scored ‘poorly’ in Horizon 2020 in the ‘Industrial Leadership’ pillar, or at
least, Dutch parties received relatively less aggregate funding than in the other two
pillars. The Netherlands also lacked a specific industrial policy in that period (in contrast
to generic ‘enabling policy’ and the Top Sectors policy, with their bottom-up agendas).71
As a result, the Netherlands had no clear agenda for industrial policy in ‘Brussels’, making
it more difficult to operate successfully in this pillar (the government recognised this
69. The amount received by Dutch researchers in European ERC grants is now roughly equal to that
     in the NWO Talent programme; see Rathenau Instituut (2022b).
70. See Diepstraten, F. (2021), ‘2 op 3 excellente MSCA-voorstellen niet gefinancierd’, which reports
     that in the Netherlands, only the LUMC in Leiden funds researchers 'from its own pocket' who
     have received a Seal of Excellence (SoE) from Brussels. The European Commission
     Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (2022) offers suggestions on the use of the
     SoE.
71. AIV (2022), Slimme industriepolitiek: een opdracht voor Nederland in de EU, Den Haag.
Strategic interplay                                                                                35
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 37 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 38 ======================================================================

<pre>implicitly in its recent industrial policy brief).72 And without clear policy ambitions, it is
difficult to conclude whether European STI policy has contributed to the achievement of
the Dutch ambitions.
Announcement of Dutch industrial policy an important first step…
A sea change has recently taken place in this regard, with the recent government
announcement of plans to pursue an ‘active industrial policy’. The Dutch government
believes it is important to ensure good, proactive links to what is happening in the EU.
Another essential is a good national agenda to help steer developments in ‘Brussels’ in
the desired direction. It helps if the various parties ‘on the ground’ in the Netherlands
collaborate effectively and are therefore able to operate more effectively in Brussels in the
various EU forums.73 The government is thus outlining important ingredients to try and
ensure that EU policy on research, technology development and innovation makes a
more effective contribution, in combination with industrial policy, to the realisation of
Dutch ambitions.
…which (still) needs to be translated into specific actions …
One caveat here is that this is still very much a paper exercise and, although the direction
of travel is good, it is now important to ensure the linkage with EU policy actually happens
in practice. All too often, policy documents describe in lofty terms the importance of
‘seeking linkage with EU policy’, with no follow-up implementation. Most of the Top
Sectors, for example, lag far behind in developing an international strategy, despite this
being their responsibility since their launch.74 It is also important that this international
strategy is more than just an export strategy; it must also emphatically embrace
international collaboration in research, development and innovation.
… and for which a budget must be made available
Although the letter to the Dutch Parliament on industrial policy states the need to align
with EU instruments, much remains unclear regarding how that link is to be achieved in
practice. There is in reality also a lack of the funds needed to genuinely achieve those
ambitions: as the government itself admits, the money is not simply there for the taking.75
For the IPCEIs, the government is eyeing the National Growth Fund as a substantial
72. Kamerbrief (Letter to the House of Representatives) Minister Adriaansens. Kamerbrief
     strategisch en groen industriebeleid. 8 July 2022, Kamerstukken II 2021-2022, 29 826, nr. 147.
73. Ibid, p. 21-22
74. See also AWTI (2017), STI Diplomacy, The Hague, in which AWTI already pointed out that most
     Top Sectors still had no internationalisation strategy, whereas the development of such a
     strategy was once again cited recently (in July 2022) as an action still to be implemented in the
     letter to the House of Representatives on industrial policy (Kamerbrief over het industriebeleid)
     (Kamerstukken II 2021-2022, 29 826, nr. 147).
75. Kamerbrief (Letter to the House of Representatives) Minister Adriaansens. Kamerbrief
     strategisch en groen industriebeleid. 8 July 2022, Kamerstukken II 2021-2022, 29 826, nr. 147.
Strategic interplay                                                                                    36
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 38 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 39 ======================================================================

<pre>source of structural funding. However, the question is how this ‘claim’ relates to the
discretionary power that the National Growth Fund Committee has. In its letter to
Parliament, the government also set only one concrete ambition, namely the creation of
European Digital Innovation Hubs. In practice, therefore, the linkage with the EU is still far
from a reality.
Strengthening earning capacity requires broader focus on neighbouring countries and EU
The National Growth Fund Committee itself observed that the proposals submitted in the
first and second round were very ‘national’ in terms of partners and focus.76 The
Committee believes that is a risk, because the success of projects undertaken in the
Netherlands also depends to a large extent on what is happening in other countries. In
the Committee’s view, Growth Fund projects also benefit from alignment with European
initiatives, and the Committee felt this was insufficiently reflected in the proposals.
Unclear whether EU support for ‘Societal Challenges’ helps achieve ambitions
The picture for the Societal Challenges pillar is more complex. On the one hand, the
Netherlands ‘scores’ well in terms of projects and funding secured by Dutch parties (in
Horizon 2020); but on the other hand, as already observed by the European Court of
Auditors, it is very difficult to determine how much those projects actually contributed to
the underlying policy ambitions. It is moreover not always clear whether the Dutch and
European ambitions and objectives are aligned with each other.
Divergent ambitions of the Netherlands and the EU
As an example, the Netherlands has its own, mission-driven innovation policy for which
the missions were defined in 2019. Within EU policy, the missions form part of Horizon
Europe, which launched in 2021. A total of 25 missions have been identified in the
Netherlands, compared with five in the EU policy. With so many missions, there is
admittedly some overlap, but we still see no real sign that the content of the Dutch
mission-driven innovation policy is in any way ‘coordinated’ with the relevant EU
mission(s), despite recommendations from AWTI to make a clear choice in advance for a
few missions which are relevant for both the EU and the Netherlands.77 This lack of
coordination was recognised by the government in 2021, which cited as an area for
improvement that the mission-driven top sectors and innovation policy ‘could be
76. Commissie Nationaal Groeifonds (2021), Rapport eerste beoordelingsronde, p. 19 and
     Commissie Nationaal Groeifonds (2022), Rapport tweede beoordelingsronde, p. 30.
77. Letter from the Chair of AWTI (2018) to the Minister of Education, Culture and Science, 18
     January 2018 with 'suggestions for missions '(‘Suggesties voor missies’) (kenmerk: 0009/18/ri).
Strategic interplay                                                                                  37
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 39 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 40 ======================================================================

<pre>broadened […] by aligning with or jointly programming other research and innovation
programmes [such as] the European research agendas.’78
The Dutch plans and agendas do sometimes refer to the opportunities (funding) offered
by EU policy, but no action plan or strategy is formulated (or applied in practice) to give
any tangible form to this alignment. The Top Sectors have been assigned a key role in
Dutch innovation policy in recent years, but most of the Top Sectors have long had a very
strong national focus (despite it being part of their brief to develop an international
agenda).79
A few years ago, AWTI also stressed the importance of ensuring that (national)
programmes focusing on key technologies be well aligned with international
developments and initiatives.80 More recently, in its report on industrial policy AIV called
for close alignment between national and European innovation and industrial policy.81
   Good practice Austria: Austria also scores well in our benchmark for Horizon 2020.
   The Austrian Research Promotion Agency (Forschungsförderungsgesellschaft (FFG))
   is an active central organisation which not only promotes research and innovation
   through national funds/programmes, but also actively engages to help ensure success
   for Austrian researchers within the EU programmes. The Agency not only offers
   project-specific support, but also support in the strategic positioning of Austria and
   Austrian researchers in the European research and innovation environment. It is also
   interesting to see that policymakers in Austria consciously align the national research
   priorities with the European priorities: based on Austria’s strengths and weaknesses,
   a few priorities are selected from the EU focus areas to which Austria then assigns a
   higher priority. The national research, technology and innovation strategy also
   stresses the ambition to create ‘leverage’ between EU policy and Austrian policy.82
Synergy between EU policy and Dutch practice begins with targeted focus from the start…
The chance that making use of EU STI policy will contribute to the realisation of Dutch
national ambitions increases if the Netherlands engages at an early stage with ‘Brussels’
78. Kamerbrief Minister Blok. Kamerbrief over Missiegedreven Topsectoren- en Innovatiebeleid. 15
     October 2021, p. 30 (Kamerstukken II 2021-2022, 33 009/32 637, nr. 102).
79. This is implicitly confirmed in the letter to Parliament from the Minister of Economic Affairs and
     Climate Policy dated 8 July 2022, ‘Het verschil maken met strategisch en groen industriebeleid’
     ('Making the difference with strategic and green industrial policy'), in which the government
     announces that the Top Sectors will now really develop an internationalisation strategy.
80. AWTI (2020), Krachtiger kiezen voor sleuteltechnologieën; in English: 'A more forceful choice for
     key technologies', Den Haag.
81. AIV (2022), Designing smart industrial policy: new departures for the Netherlands within the EU.
82. Federal Government Republic of Austria (2020), RTI Strategy 2030. Strategy for Research,
     Technology and Innovation of the Austrian Federal Government, Vienna.
Strategic interplay                                                                                    38
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 40 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 41 ======================================================================

<pre>based on a clear agenda. A medium-sized country like the Netherlands cannot help
shape the entire agenda and will therefore need to prioritise and target its efforts.
Influencing the EU agenda will be more effective if the Netherlands has a clear national
agenda in the relevant fields.83 That will help focus attention and effort within the Brussels
processes.84 The Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs has itself concluded that there is a
deficiency of Dutch ‘Europe policy’:85 there is no detailed strategic framework for
engagement with Brussels, while the political direction and definition of a strategic
standpoint are limited. This picture was confirmed in various interviews we conducted
with individuals with a good insight into the processes in ‘Brussels’. The impression is that
the Netherlands is not doing enough to get ‘ahead of the curve’ in the Brussels policy
process early enough to achieve coordination between the various ministries involved
and then, through judicious choices and prioritisation, to forge a strong position in
Brussels. According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, more selectivity and flexibility are
needed for a more effective stance in Brussels.
The conclusion was also that the focus in determining Dutch standpoints is more ‘inward-
looking’, concerned with reaching national consensus, so that less account is taken of the
power relations in Brussels. This is despite the fact that the positions of the European
Commission, European Parliament and the other Member States have such a big impact
in determining the course of the negotiations. It is therefore important to forge a pragmatic
link, based on the national agenda, with what is happening in Brussels. How can the
Netherlands contribute to the ambitions of the EU? The Dutch Advisory Council on
International Affairs (AIV) also referred to this when recommending that the Netherlands
should focus earlier and more forcefully on the lines of force in ‘Brussels’.86
   Good practice Flanders. Flanders, the Dutch-speaking region of Belgium, also
   scores well in the benchmark. An interesting initiative is the ‘Flemish platform for
   European programmes’, or EU Platform.87 The Platform is made up of representatives
   of governments, knowledge institutes, industry and civil society (quadruple helix). Its
83. See also Recommendation 1 from AIV (2022), p. 7.
84. In the letter to Parliament on industrial policy, the government announced a 'focused
     internationalisation agenda', and also highlighted the importance of good coordination between
     national and regional agendas (Kamerstukken II 2021-2022, 29 826, nr. 147).
85. Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken, Directie Internationaal Onderzoek en Beleidsevaluatie
     (2021), Tactisch en praktisch. Naar een toekomstbestendige coördinatie van het Nederlandse
     Europabeleid, Den Haag: December 2021.
86. See e.g. Recommendation 2 (‘Use the language of European public interests…'),
     Recommendation 5 (‘Seek EU allies …') and Recommendation 6 (‘Seek closer alignment with
     Berlin and Paris') in AIV (2022), p. 7-8.
87. https://www.ewi-vlaanderen.be/onze-opdracht/excellerend-onderzoek/internationale-
     samenwerking/eu-platform
Strategic interplay                                                                                 39
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 41 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 42 ======================================================================

<pre>   purpose is to strengthen the collaboration between relevant actors based on clear role
   divisions and transparent agreements. This is achieved by coordinating the
   participants and delivering input for Flemish policy. This helps both with the Flemish
   input into the development and subsequent implementation of EU policy. The EU
   Platform is regarded in Flanders as an example of good practice for stakeholder
   management. Although it enables Flanders to respond well and in good time to
   developments in Brussels, its impact on determining the standpoints of Belgium as a
   whole within the EU is less clear-cut, because it is a federal standpoint, whereas input
   from Wallonia or the Brussels Capital region also plays a role in determining a
   national standpoint.
… and demands a judicious balance between generic and specific policy
One problem here is that the Netherlands has a tradition of developing generic policy in
many fields, whereas the EU policy for STI is largely specific and increasingly linked to
thematic or sectoral EU policy. The Netherlands needs to find a considered answer to
this. In general, however, the Netherlands has difficulty making choices. This trait is an
impediment to engagement in Brussels, because it is not possible to achieve everything
there, so choices have to be made. But with whom should the Netherlands form coalitions
in Brussels? Here again, a clear agenda and assessment framework 88 could help. The
Dutch government did recently take a first step in developing an assessment framework
for (participation in) IPCEIs.89 A subsequent question is whether the Netherlands, once
the European policy has crystallised, dares to make targeted choices in national policy in
order to align it better with European policy. Making choices demands knowledge and
daring, both of which are a challenge for the government. Those targeted choices can
relate both to the choice to align national and European programmes (‘mutually
reinforcing’) or for national and EU programmes to supplement each other
(‘complementary’) (where the national focus is deliberately on different goals from the EU
goals). The latter may be relevant, for example, if the government wishes to support a
discipline or economic sector in which the Netherlands excels but which is less prominent
in the rest of Europe.
Financially cautious and sometimes hesitant attitude is an impediment
Finally, the Netherlands often lacks the (financial) capacity or political striking power to
engage fully with European actions. For example, the initial response from the
Netherlands to the European Universities Initiative was hesitant, and the parties
88. Recommendation 3 in AIV (2022), p. 7, which is further fleshed out in chapter 5 of that report.
89. Kamerbrief (Letter to the House of Representatives) Minister Adriaansens. Kamerbrief
     strategisch en groen industriebeleid. 8 July 2022 (kenmerk DGBI-TOP / 22266731), p. 39-43
     (Kamerstukken II 2021-2022, 29 826, nr. 147).
Strategic interplay                                                                                 40
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 42 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 43 ======================================================================

<pre>concerned (universities) ultimately took action themselves. And in the case of the IPCEIs,
where Member States themselves have to put up the funding,90 the Netherlands tends to
adopt a wait-and-see approach and in reality also lacks the budget to engage in a
meaningful way. Budgets for participation in IPCEIs always have to be sought on an ad
hoc basis, despite the government’s ambition to ‘invest adequately in European industrial
projects.91 The disadvantage of this approach is that the Netherlands does not really
secure a decisive place at the table in the initial phase of such initiatives and therefore
misses out on opportunities to steer those initiatives in a direction that is favourable for
the Netherlands.
‘Distance’ from Brussels STI policy also impedes effective coordination
The two Dutch government ministries with primary responsibility for research and
innovation policy – the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science and the Ministry of
Economic Affairs and Climate Policy – have a reasonable awareness of the opportunities
offered by the EU for STI. However, because more and more sectoral or thematic EU
policy also has an STI component, it is becoming more important for other ministries also
to be aware of this in order to optimise the development of Dutch policy. The same
applies for the Dutch provinces and all regions, though it is a difficult challenge for them
because of a more limited awareness of the Brussels policy and processes. Provinces
and regions do probably have an awareness of instruments such as ERDF and Interreg,
which are implemented via the regions, but will have less knowledge of the framework
programme, for example. The result is that the opportunities offered by EU STI policy for
meeting Dutch ambitions will not be sufficiently incorporated in the policy of Dutch
government ministries, regions or provinces.
2.4 Conclusion: Dutch research and innovation benefits from
EU funding, but a lack of joined-up policy means its impact on
the achievement of ambitions is still too limited
European policy for STI is steadily expanding and becoming ever more intertwined with
the EU’s other policy priorities. European STI policy has become a highly relevant factor
alongside national STI policy. Ideally, EU and national STI policy should reinforce or
complement each other, but the alignment between them is not all it could be: in practice,
they are fairly ‘separate’ from each other. That is illustrated in Figure 8, which visualises
the ‘problem’ addressed in this report, by showing the ‘dominoes’ of EU STI policy and
90. Member States can potentially also use funds from the EU Recovery and Resilience Facility (see
     Article 18, paragraph 4(b) or Regulation (EU) 2021/241).
91. Kamerbrief Minister Adriaansens. Kamerbrief strategisch en groen industriebeleid. 8 July 2022
     (kenmerk DGBI-TOP / 22266731), p. 5 (Kamerstukken II 2021-2022, 29 826, nr. 147).
Strategic interplay                                                                               41
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 43 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 44 ======================================================================

<pre>Dutch STI policy each falling in different directions. On the one hand, too little thought is
given in the Netherlands to how Dutch policy can contribute to the EU ambitions, while on
the other hand the Netherlands often lacks a clear national agenda, and as a result is
less effective in Brussels in seeking to ensure that EU STI policy is closely aligned with
Dutch national ambitions and policy. It is moreover no easy task to ensure good
alignment between the often generic policy (or policy tradition) in the Netherlands and the
more specific sectoral and thematic programmes emanating from Brussels.
Despite these limitations, Dutch actors such as knowledge institutes, companies and
research organisations make good use of the opportunities offered by EU policy. They
have secured above-average levels of funding in recent years from EU programmes for
STI, and have also had a higher success rate than average. This is also shown in Figure
8 by the ‘domino’ representing EU STI policy setting off lots of ‘activities’ in research,
development and innovation. The EU policy leads to a lot of output in the Netherlands. It
does however appear that certain types of organisations in the Netherlands have more
difficulty in accessing EU programmes, such as universities of applied sciences or SMEs.
Because EU and Dutch policies for STI are currently ‘separate’ from each other, it is
unclear whether the STI activities undertaken by Dutch actors and supported by the EU
policy actually make a ‘substantive’ contribution to the underlying ambitions. In other
words, we have no clear insight into whether the policy contributes to the desired
outcome. This is shown in Figure 8 by the fact that the dominoes representing the policy
and the activities it triggers fall alongside the domino representing the ambitions. There is
much to be gained here in terms of whether STI policy genuinely contributes to the
underlying (policy) ambitions, which in turn could increase the impact of European STI
policy in combination with the equivalent Dutch policy (national and regional).
Strategic interplay                                                                           42
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 44 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 45 ======================================================================

<pre>Figure 8
Problem: Lack of joined-up policy undermines STI contribution to achievement of the
                 ambitions
Strategic interplay                                                                 43
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 45 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 46 ======================================================================

<pre>Figure 9
Advice: Ensure a coherent mix of European and Dutch STI policy aimed at achieving the
              ambitions
Strategic interplay                                                                 44
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 46 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 47 ======================================================================

<pre>                                                                                       3
3 Recommendations
  Ensure that EU and Dutch policy for science, technology and innovation (STI) go
  hand in hand and either reinforce (‘leverage’) or complement each other. Also
  ensure that the promoted STI activities genuinely contribute to achieving the
  underlying ambitions.
  Advice: Ensure a coherent mix of European and Dutch STI policy aimed at achieving the
  ambitions
  This advice is visualised in Figure 9. Unlike Figure 8, which illustrates the current situation
  in which Dutch and European STI policy each go in different directions, the dominoes of
  EU and Dutch policy in Figure 9 stand shoulder to shoulder: reinforcing or complementing
  each other. The policy now also triggers activities aimed at achieving the underlying
  ambitions.
  The Netherlands and Europe have much to gain from each other in STI
  We believe that this alignment of European and Dutch STI policy is perfectly possible.
  The themes that are important for Europe are often also high on the Dutch agenda (such
  as energy/climate and digitalisation). The general importance of a strong knowledge base
  and good-quality research is also undisputed, both in Brussels and The Hague. These
  themes which are on the agenda in both the EU and the Netherlands generally require
  international collaboration. European projects strengthen that collaboration. Our analysis
  shows that Dutch actors are interesting partners in this collaboration, with a good track
  record in jointly securing substantial financial support from the EU for science, technology
  and innovation, in collaboration with parties from many countries.
  The challenge for the Netherlands is to remain an interesting partner in the future – that is
  not guaranteed – and to ensure that European and Dutch policy complement each other
  and together contribute to achieving the underlying objectives of STI policy. With this in
  mind, AWTI puts forward the following six recommendations.
  3.1 Ensure good alignment between Dutch and EU policy on
  STI so that they reinforce or complement each other
  Recommendation 1: Treat Dutch and European STI policy is a single whole. Maintain a
  clear view of the ambitions and create a coherent policy mix which serves those
  ambitions. Ensure that Dutch and EU policy instruments (including fiscal policy) reinforce
  or complement each other.
  Strategic interplay                                                                           45
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 47 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 48 ======================================================================

<pre>Figure 10 Recommendation 1: Ensure good alignment between Dutch and EU policy
                                        on STI so that they reinforce or complement each other
Ideally, within the total policy mix, the Netherlands will manage to link the various
instruments to other (national and regional) instruments in such a way that they reinforce
each other. This will create leverage, substantive and/or financial (e.g. in the form of co-
investment). An alternative is national policy which complements European policy, for
example for themes which are of great importance for the Netherlands but not so much
within the EU. The fiscal instruments must not be forgotten here; although tax affairs are
devolved to national level, the EU sets the framework in relation to setting a minimum
level of corporate taxation.92 It is important that this continues to incentivise European
companies to carry out research and development and that this aligns with the other
policy.
92. Council Directive (EU) 2022/2523 of 14 December 2022 on ensuring a global minimum level of
     taxation for multinational enterprise groups and large-scale domestic groups in the Union (OJ
     2022, L 328).
Strategic interplay                                                                                46
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 48 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 49 ======================================================================

<pre>To put this recommendation into practice, we advise the Dutch government when
developing Dutch STI policy to carry out a preliminary ‘EU check’ to ascertain which EU
programmes exist in the field concerned and to use this as a basis for a considered
choice on how national policy can align with those programmes, either by making parallel
choices (reinforcing) or through complementarity. The latter could mean that a country or
region deliberately focuses on a given sector or theme that is not covered by EU policy.
This should be combined with ex-post evaluation of the entire policy mix (incorporating
both EU and Dutch policy instruments), with the emphasis on the interplay of the different
measures. This makes it possible to identify where different programmes reinforce or
oppose each other, or where there are still gaps. It is also possible to evaluate the
relationship between generic and specific policy instruments: do they complement each
other or is there too much emphasis on one or the other?93
3.2 Take a proactive and strategic stance in Brussels with a
focused agenda
Recommendation 2: Be more effective in Brussels by delivering more strategic,
selective and targeted input into the EU policy processes. At national level, develop a
good assessment framework and a clear agenda for what the Netherlands wishes to
achieve via the EU. Operate proactively and take into account the Brussels playing field.
Also reinforce the Dutch input in the phase of fleshing out EU STI instruments so that
they are better aligned with the Dutch policy and agenda.
To improve the alignment between European and Dutch policy for STI, it is important to
influence EU policy as early and as effectively as possible, for example by helping
determine which themes the EU chooses and how these are subsequently fleshed out.
More effective influence demands more strategic and selective linkage of the national and
European agendas than happens at present. A medium-sized country like the
Netherlands cannot shape the entire agenda and will therefore need to prioritise its
efforts. This requires better coordination between the different government departments,
leading to choices and priorities on which efforts can be targeted in ‘Brussels’. An
assessment framework will be helpful here in determining when a topic is found that is
worth picking up via the EU and what role is envisaged for the Netherlands. It is also
important to take more account of developments on the EU playing field and the positions
adopted by different countries. The Netherlands should work with other countries and
reflect on how the Netherlands can make an active contribution to the EU’s ambitions –
93. Cf. VARIO (2022), Visie op een goede beleidsmix tussen vrije en thematische steun voor O&O in
     Vlaanderen, Brussels.
Strategic interplay                                                                            47
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 49 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 50 ======================================================================

<pre>Figure 11 Recommendation 2 Take a proactive and strategic stance in Brussels with a
                                  focused agenda
not just because in order to achieve anything in Brussels it is essential to ‘bring
something to the table’, but also because collaboration within the EU offers many
opportunities for Dutch research and innovation and because more impact can be
achieved together in realising the ambitions.
3.3 Continue to support basic research in the EU and link it
more effectively to innovation
Recommendation 3: The Netherlands should continue to provide generous support for
basic research within the EU STI policy and should advocate strengthening the links
between basic research and (the instruments for) the application of knowledge where
relevant.
Strategic interplay                                                                 48
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 50 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 51 ======================================================================

<pre>Figure 12 Recommendation 3 Continue to support basic research in the EU and link it
                                  more effectively to innovation
The EU has provided a major boost for basic research with its STI policy in recent years
(including via the European Research Council (ERC) in the last 15 years). That continues
in the current framework programme. Support for basic research will need to remain as
an important pillar of EU STI policy in the future, because it contributes to maintaining and
developing Europe as a ‘knowledge power’. The Netherlands will (have to) engage with
this in ‘Brussels’.
As European STI policy has the explicit ambition of supporting the entire chain of
research and innovation, support for basic research will always stand alongside support
for more applied research and other activities (such as upscaling). Where possible and
meaningful, it is important to create good links between the different types of research
and development. The Dutch government should therefore aim to improve the linkage
between the different EU instruments, for example by strengthening the links between the
Strategic interplay                                                                         49
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 51 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 52 ======================================================================

<pre>instruments of the European Research Council (ERC) and the European Innovation
Council (EIC). That will lead among other things to more interaction between researchers
and entrepreneurs, something that is essential in closing the gap between the
development and application of knowledge.94
European STI policy, like its Dutch counterpart, is emphatically a ‘both… and’ narrative.
There is no magic formula governing the relationship between support for basic research,
applied research and upscaling. The assessment framework for the role of the EU (see
Recommendation 2) will have to serve as a guide for how big a role the Netherlands sees
for the EU in supporting the different types of activities, possibly focused on specific
themes or sectors. The EU policy (like the national policy) is also a combination of
generic and specific instruments. It is important to realise that activities which support
generic policy (can) also contribute to certain specific objectives. ‘Generic versus specific’
is thus not a black-and-white opposition. This must be made clear by carrying out an ex
post analysis of how generic funding is spent: to which themes, sectors or challenges did
the research contribute?95 For example: a certain percentage of the (generic) budget was
spent on climate-related research. This fits in very well in the evaluation of the policy mix
advised above (see Recommendation 1).
3.4 Create regional links with EU STI policy
Recommendation 4: To enable the regions to make better use of the opportunities
offered by EU policy and to ensure that regional and EU policy reinforce or complement
each other, it is important to:
(a) take account of the relevant EU policy in the regional innovation agenda;
(b) spend the regional EU funds in such a way that they reinforce other STI policy;
(c) help regional actors to make use of EU instruments;
(d) link regional ecosystems to promote inter-European collaboration.
The regions are where research and innovation take place. Moreover, many regions
develop their own policy for innovation. AWTI has previously advised the regions to
develop regional innovation ecosystem agendas.96 These should also incorporate the
opportunities offered by EU policy. The regions, too, should therefore carry out a
preliminary ‘EU check’ (see Recommendation 1). There are direct opportunities to link the
94. European Research Council (2022), Annual Report on the ERC activities and achievements in
     2021, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the EU, p. 27.
95. Cf. VARIO (2022), Visie op een goede beleidsmix tussen vrije en thematische steun voor O&O in
     Vlaanderen, Brussel.
96. AWTI (2021), Samen de lat hoog leggen. Regio en rijk bundelen krachten voor innovatie,
     summary in English: ‘Raising the bar together. Regional and central government working
     together for innovation’, Den Haag.
Strategic interplay                                                                            50
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 52 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 53 ======================================================================

<pre>regional and EU agendas with instruments such as ERDF and Interreg, the funding from
which is distributed via regional organisations. But the regions also need to be aware of
the opportunities offered by other EU instruments, such as the framework programmes.
Here too, the opportunities offered by EU policy need to be fully dovetailed with what is
happening in the region. One caveat here is that the complex Brussels playing field is not
easy for individual regions to navigate; collaboration between regions and with bodies
such as the Netherlands Enterprise Agency can help improve the clarity of sight on
developments and opportunities in Europe.
Figure 13 Recommendation 4 Create regional links with EU STI policy
Strategic interplay                                                                       51
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 53 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 54 ======================================================================

<pre>The regions could potentially also play a role in reducing the ‘innovation gap’ between the
generally more innovative regions in the ‘old’ EU Member States on the one hand and the
less innovative regions in many of the newer EU Member States on the other. Wide
scope should be created here for the pilot projects which were recently launched through
the Partnerships for Regional Innovation.97 These should be properly evaluated and the
experiences gained put to good use.
3.5 Provide support in making use of EU instruments
Recommendation 5: Ensure that Dutch actors such as knowledge institutes and
companies are able to make maximum use of the possibilities offered by EU instruments
for STI, by ensuring well-organised support. Focus government support on those actors
which (still) have more difficulty accessing EU instruments. Apart from support with
applications, this also means support in growing these actors’ relevant networks.
Some Dutch actors are able to access the EU programmes effectively; they are aware of
the possibilities and have the right networks to enable them to submit joint proposals.
Actors that currently find it difficult to access EU programmes, such as SMEs and
universities of applied sciences, need to be helped here, and this support is crucial. The
government efforts must as a minimum focus on those groups which find it more difficult
to gain access to EU instruments.
The help they receive will need to be focused in the first instance on increasing their
familiarity with the opportunities offered by EU instruments. In addition to information,
participation in the right networks can be important here, helping set parties such as
knowledge institutes and companies on the right track towards accessing the specific
opportunities offered by EU policy. Support from the government in this strategic network-
building is useful and effective. In the Basque Country, we saw the positive impact of
alliance-building between top research institutes, and actors in Norway and Sweden
receive support in finding the right network partners. Another example is the Enterprise
Europe Network (of which the Netherlands is a member),98 which focuses particularly on
helping SMEs to find suitable international partners for innovation commercialisation. In
addition to information and network-building, parties can also benefit from support, both
administrative and financial, in compiling project proposals for EU instruments. The
combination of support activities such as these will lower the threshold and probably also
97. https://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pri
98. https://een.ec.europa.eu/ and specifically for the Netherlands:
     https://www.rvo.nl/onderwerpen/een
Strategic interplay                                                                        52
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 54 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 55 ======================================================================

<pre>Figure 14
Recommendation 5 Provide support in making use of EU instruments
increase the success rate, especially for those parties which currently find it difficult to
access EU instruments.
3.6 Safeguard opportunities for collaboration with attractive
non-EU partners
Recommendation 6: The Netherlands must make efforts to keep open the opportunities
for collaboration with partners from the United Kingdom, Switzerland and Israel within the
EU STI programmes. If this fails at any point, the Netherlands must work on bilateral
options for collaboration where this offers clear added value.
Strategic interplay                                                                          53
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 55 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 56 ======================================================================

<pre>Being a member of the right networks of domestic and international partners has clear
added value for research and innovation. Several analyses show that Dutch actors work
well with partners from within and beyond the Netherlands. EU STI policy provides
important support for this. Recent years have seen growing collaboration with partners
from Southern and Eastern European countries. At the same time, however, Dutch actors
also collaborate frequently with reputed partners from non-EU countries such as the
United Kingdom, Switzerland and Israel. It is in the interests of Dutch STI and its impact
that collaboration with partners from those countries remains possible, preferably – as in
recent years – within EU programmes. Israel’s recent associate membership of Horizon
Europe is a positive development.99 Negotiations are still ongoing for the United Kingdom,
although the UK is currently funding its own domestic actors if they are successful within
Horizon Europe.100 Switzerland also currently has no associate membership and qualifies
as a ‘third-party country’; it funds successful Swiss actors itself.101 If it proves impossible
to promote collaboration with these countries through the framework of EU programmes,
the Netherlands will need to look to bilateral arrangements as a safety net.
99. European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (2021b), ‘Israel joins
     Horizon Europe research and innovation programme’, News Article dated 6 December 2021:
     https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/news/all-research-and-innovation-news/israel-
     joins-horizon-europe-research-and-innovation-programme-2021-12-06_en
100. Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (2022), ‘Government extends Horizon
     Europe financial safety net’, press release dated 19 December 2022:
     https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-extends-horizon-europe-financial-safety-net--2
101. Federal Department of Economic Affairs, Education and Research - State Secretariat for
     Education, Research and Innovation (2023), Status Update: Swiss participation in Horizon
     Europe and related programmes and initiatives, Information as of 30 January 2023, accessed at:
     https://www.sbfi.admin.ch/dam/sbfi/en/dokumente/2019/02/horizon-
     europe.pdf.download.pdf/Fact-sheet_Horizon_en.pdf
Strategic interplay                                                                               54
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 56 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 57 ======================================================================

<pre>Figure 15 Recommendation 6 Safeguard opportunities for collaboration with attractive
                           non-EU partners
Strategic interplay                                                                  55
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 57 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 58 ======================================================================

<pre>Strategic interplay 56</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 58 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 59 ======================================================================

<pre>Bijlagen
Strategic interplay 57
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 59 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 60 ======================================================================

<pre>Appendix 1 Request for advice
Strategic interplay           58
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 60 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 61 ======================================================================

<pre>[Translation of the letter in English]
                                                      Ministry of Education, Culture and Science
>Return address Postbus 16375 2500 BJ The Hague
Advisory Council for Science, Technology and Innovation
Attn. Dr E.E.W. Bruins
Prins Willem-Alexanderhof 20
2595 BE The Hague
                                                                Research and Science Policy
                                                                Rijnstraat 50
                                                                The Hague
                                                                Postbus 16375
                                                                2500 BJ The Hague
                                                                www.rijksoverheid.nl
                                                                Contact
                                                                Our ref.
                                                                33848237
Date: 22 SEP. 2022
Re.: Request for Advice on utilising European STI policy
Dear Dr Bruins,
The current geopolitical shifts and the changes taking place within the EU both have an impact on
European STI policy and its alignment with Dutch policy for science, technology and innovation. On
my own behalf and on behalf of my colleague at the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy,
I am writing to request advice from AWTI concerning the following question:
How can the Netherlands make optimum use of European STI policy in order to strengthen the
impact of science, technology and innovation within and from the Netherlands?
In addressing this question, particular attention could be given to the following topics:
1)     Embedding the value of a European framework programme specifically aimed at (basic)
       research and innovation in a context where European sectoral and cross-sectoral priorities
       focusing on societal transition are acquiring increasing prominence.
2)     Monitoring the balance between the importance of excellent basic research on the one hand
       (pillar 1 in Horizon Europe: ‘Excellent Science’) and upscaling and impact on the other (pillar 3
       of Horizon Europe: ‘Innovative Europe’), within a European framework programme for research
       and innovation.
3)     The role of research and innovation ecosystems in closing the innovation gap, partly in the light
       of the question of whether there are themes and sectors for the Netherlands where as yet
       untapped opportunities for European collaboration exist. Also whether projects that are funded
       from the National Growth Fund could play a role here.
Yours sincerely,
The Minister of Education, Culture and Science,
[signed]
Robbert Dijkgraaf
Strategic interplay                                                                                      59
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 61 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 62 ======================================================================

<pre>Appendix 2 Reviewers
In the final phase of compiling this report, a draft version was submitted to 2 external
reviewers. They were asked to reflect on the consistency of the draft report and identify
any gaps. The reviewers’ comments were then incorporated under the responsibility of
the Council.
The reviewers for this report were:
     ►        Dr J.J.H. (Jan) van den Biesen MBA, Adviser on European Research Policy and
              Research & Innovation Strategies at EUROPOLARIS
     ►        M.A. (Marc) Holtkamp, Senior adviser in strategic collaboration at Leiden
              University
Strategic interplay                                                                       60
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 62 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 63 ======================================================================

<pre>Appendix 3 Interviewees
► Muriël Attané         EARTO
                        Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific
► Christine Balch
                        Research (TNO)
► Gaby Bes              ASML
► Michael Binder        Forschungsförderungsgesellschaft (FFG)
► Nora van Bracht       Ministry of Education, Culture and Science
                        ArtEZ; Netherlands Association of Universities of
► Marjolijn Brussaard
                        Applied Sciences
                        Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific
► Erik Drop
                        Research (TNO)
► Servaas Duterloo      TU Delft
► Werner van Eck        MEP Communicatiesystemen
► Thomas Geernaert      Flemish Council for Science and Innovation
► Audrey Goosen         Permanent Representation in Brussels
► Lisa Gorter           UNL
► Dolf Grasveld         Permanent Representation in Brussels
► Marc Holtkamp         European Commission (at the time of the interview)
                        Fontys; Netherlands Association of Universities of
► Joep Houterman
                        Applied Sciences
► Ineke Hoving-Nienhuis Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy
► Linda Hulspas         Netherlands Enterprise Agency (RVO)
► Jasper Jans           Dutch Education Council
► Hans Kamphuis         RVO Enterprise Europe Netwerk
► Doenja Koppejan       Ministry of Education, Culture and Science
► Arco Krijgsman        ASML
                        Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
► Melle Kromhout
                        (KNAW)
► Marjolein Lauwen      Ministry of Education, Culture and Science
► Veerle Linseele       Flemish Council for Science and Innovation
► Emy Margarittha       Netherlands Enterprise Agency (RVO)
► Frank Nouwens         Beefy Green
Strategic interplay                                                        61
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 63 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 64 ======================================================================

<pre>► Juliët van Oudenhoven TU Delft
► Koen de Pater         Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy
► Bart Pierik           UNL
► David van der Plas    Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy
► Stephan Raes          OECD
► Danielle Raspoet      Flemish Council for Science and Innovation
► Elie Ratinckx         Flemish Council for Science and Innovation
► Jurgen Rienks         Neth-ER
► Karin Roelofs         Radboud University; Association of ERC Grantees
► Patrick Schelvis      Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy
► Wijnand van Smaalen   Province of Zuid-Holland
► Jan Reint Smit        Netherlands Enterprise Agency (RVO)
► Robert-Jan Smits      TU Eindhoven
► Luc Soete             Maastricht University
► Talitha Stam          Dutch Education Council
► Meindert Stolk        Province of Zuid-Holland
► Merei Wagenaar        Ministry of Foreign Affairs
► Margot Weijnen        Dutch Research Council (NWO)
► Olga Wessels          European Consortium of Innovative Universities
► Jack de Wit           RijkZwaan
Strategic interplay                                                     62
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 64 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 65 ======================================================================

<pre>Appendix 4 References
►       Advisory Council on International Affairs (AIV) (2022). Designing smart industrial
        policy: new departures for the Netherlands within the EU. Accessed at:
        https://www.advisorycouncilinternationalaffairs.nl/documents/publications/2022/04/0
        1/designing-smart-industrial-policy
►       Algemene Rekenkamer / Netherlands Court of Audit (2022), The Added Value of EU
        Grants in the Netherlands (2022). Den Haag: October 2022. Accessed at
        https://english.rekenkamer.nl/publications/reports/2022/10/18/added-value-of-eu-
        grants-in-the-netherlands
►       AWTI (2017). STI Diplomacy. Den Haag: 2017.
►       AWTI (2018). Brief van de voorzitter van de AWTI aan de minister van Onderwijs,
        Cultuur en Wetenschap, 18 January 2018, met ‘Suggesties voor missies’ (kenmerk:
        0009/18/ri).
►       AWTI (2020). Krachtiger kiezen voor sleuteltechnologieën. (‘A more forceful choice
        for key technologies’) Den Haag: 2020.
►       AWTI (2021), Samen de lat hoog leggen. Regio en rijk bundelen krachten voor
        innovatie, Den Haag: 2021.
►       Commissie Nationaal Groeifonds (2021). Rapport eerste beoordelingsronde.
        Den Haag: Ministerie van Economische Zaken en Klimaat. Accessed at:
        https://www.nationaalgroeifonds.nl/documenten/rapporten/2021/04/09/adviesrapport
        -eerste-beoordelingsronde-commissie-nationaal-groeifonds.
►       Commissie Nationaal Groeifonds (2022). Rapport tweede beoordelingsronde. Den
        Haag: Ministerie van Economische Zaken en Klimaat. Accessed at:
        https://www.nationaalgroeifonds.nl/documenten/rapporten/2022/04/14/adviesrapport
        -tweede-beoordelingsronde-commissie-nationaal-groeifonds.
►       Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (2022). ‘Government extends
        Horizon Europe financial safety net’, press release 19 December 2022:
        https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-extends-horizon-europe-
        financial-safety-net--2
►       Diepstraten, F. (2021). ‘2 op 3 excellente MSCA-voorstellen niet gefinancierd’.
        Accessed at: https://www.neth-er.eu/onderzoek/2-op-3-excellente-msca-voorstellen-
        niet-gefinancierd.
►       European Commission (2020a). A New Industrial Strategy for Europe. Brussels,
        10.3.2020, COM(2020) 102 final.
►       European Commission (2020b). Updating the 2020 New Industrial Strategy: Building
        a stronger Single Market for Europe’s recovery. Brussels, 5.5.2021, COM(2021) 350
        final.
Strategic interplay                                                                        63
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 65 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 66 ======================================================================

<pre>►       European Commission (2021a). Communication of the European Commission on
        the Global Approach to Research and Innovation - Europe's strategy for
        international cooperation in a changing world. Brussels, 18.5.2021, COM(2021) 252
        final.
►       European Commission (2021b). Horizon Europe. Strategic plan 2021 - 2024.
        Accessed at:
        https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/horizon_europe_strategic_plan_2021-
        2024.pdf.
►       European Commission (2021c). Regional Innovation Scoreboard 2021.
        Luxembourg: Publications Office of the EU,
        https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2873/674111
►       European Commission (2022a). Chips Act for Europe. Brussels, 08.02.2022,
        COM(2022) 45 final.
►       European Commission (2022b). A New European Innovation Agenda. Brussels,
        05.07.2022 COM(2022) 332 final.
►       European Commission (2022c). Key enabling technologies policy. Accessed at:
        https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/research-area/industry/key-enabling-
        technologies_en.
►       European Commission (2022d). European Partnerships in Horizon Europe.
        Accessed at: https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-
        opportunities/funding-programmes-and-open-calls/horizon-europe/european-
        partnerships-horizon-europe_en.
►       European Commission (2022e). Horizon 2020 Online Manual. Accessed at:
        https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/docs/h2020-funding-guide/cross-cutting-
        issues/sme_en.htm.
►       European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (2016).
        Open innovation, open science, open to the world : a vision for Europe. Publications
        Office, 2016, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/061652.
►       European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (2020).
        Strategic Plan 2020-2024. Accessed at:
        https://commission.europa.eu/publications/strategic-plan-2020-2024-research-and-
        innovation_en.
►       European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (2021a).
        Horizon Europe Strategic Plan (2021-2024).
►       European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (2021b).
        ‘Israel joins Horizon Europe research and innovation programme’, news article 6
        December 2021: https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/news/all-research-
        and-innovation-news/israel-joins-horizon-europe-research-and-innovation-
        programme-2021-12-06_en
Strategic interplay                                                                        64
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 66 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 67 ======================================================================

<pre>►       European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (2022).
        Synergies between Horizon Europe and ERDF programmes (Draft Commission
        Notice). C(2022), C 4747 final. Accessed at: https://research-and-
        innovation.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2022-07/c_2022_4747_1_en_annex.pdf.
►       European Innovation Council (2022). EIC Funding Opportunities. Accessed at:
        https://eic.ec.europa.eu/eic-funding-opportunities/eic-accelerator-0_en.
►       European Court of Auditors (2020). Report of the European Court of Auditors on the
        performance of the EU budget — Status at the end of 2019, Luxembourg:
        Publications Office of the EU. Accessed at:
        https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/annualreport-Performance-
        2019/annualreport-Performance-2019_NL.pdf.
►       Federal Department of Economic Affairs, Education and Research - State
        Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (2023). Status Update: Swiss
        participation in Horizon Europe and related programmes and initiatives, Information
        as of 30 January 2023, Accessed at:
        https://www.sbfi.admin.ch/dam/sbfi/en/dokumente/2019/02/horizon-
        europe.pdf.download.pdf/Fact-sheet_Horizon_en.pdf
►       Federal Government Republic of Austria (2020). RTI Strategy 2030. Strategy for
        Research, Technology and Innovation of the Austrian Federal Government. Vienna.
►       IDEA Consult (2023). Nederland in Horizon 2020. Een kwantitatieve analyse voor
        de AWTI. Den Haag: AWTI.
►       Kamerbrief (Letter to the House of Representatives from) Minister Adriaansens
        (2022). Kamerbrief strategisch en groen industriebeleid. 8 July 2022 (kenmerk
        DGBI-TOP / 22266731), Kamerstukken II 2021-2022, 29 826, nr. 147.
►       Kamerbrief (Letter to the House of Representatives from) Minister Blok (2021).
        Kamerbrief over Missiegedreven Topsectoren- en Innovatiebeleid. 15 October 2021
        (kenm. DGBI-I&K/21253939), Kamerstukken II 2021-2022, 33 009/32 637, nr. 102.
►       Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken, Directie Internationaal Onderzoek en
        Beleidsevaluatie (2021). Tactisch en praktisch. Naar een toekomstbestendige
        coördinatie van het Nederlandse Europabeleid. (‘Tactical and practical. Towards a
        future-proof coordination of Dutch policy on Europe’) Den Haag: December 2021.
        Accessed at https://www.iob-
        evaluatie.nl/publicaties/rapporten/2021/12/03/coordinatie-nederlands-eu-beleid.
►       OECD (2015). Frascati Manual 2015: Guidelines for Collecting and Reporting Data
        on Research and Experimental Development, The Measurement of Scientific,
        Technological and Innovation Activities. OECD Publishing, Paris, DOI:
        http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264239012-en.
Strategic interplay                                                                        65
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 67 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 68 ======================================================================

<pre>►       Rathenau Instituut (2022a). Nederland en Horizon 2020, reference date 4 April
        2022. Accessed at https://www.rathenau.nl/nl/wetenschap-cijfers/nederland-en-
        horizon-2020.
►       Rathenau Instituut (2022b). De financiering uit EU-kaderprogramma’s, reference
        date 8 April 2022. Accessed at https://www.rathenau.nl/nl/wetenschap-
        cijfers/geld/europese-financiering/de-financiering-uit-eu-kaderprogrammas.
►       Rathenau Instituut (2022c). Samenwerkingslanden Nederland, reference date 2
        September 2022. Accessed at: https://www.rathenau.nl/nl/wetenschap-
        cijfers/werking-van-de-wetenschap/samenwerking/samenwerkingslanden-
        nederland.
►       Reillon, V. (2017). EU framework programmes for research and innovation.
        Evolution and key data from FP1 to Horizon 2020 in view of FP9, Brussels:
        European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS).
►       RVO (2021). Important Project of Common European Interest (IPCEI). Accessed at:
        https://www.rvo.nl/subsidies-financiering/ipcei.
►       Vlaamse Adviesraad voor Innoveren en Ondernemen (VARIO, 2022). Visie op een
        goede beleidsmix tussen vrije en thematische steun voor O&O in Vlaanderen.
        (‘Vision on a good policy mix between free and thematic support for R&D in
        Flanders’) VARIO-advies nr. 27. Brussels: May 2022. Accessed at:
        https://www.vario.be/sites/default/files/documents/2022_MEI_VARIO_ADVIES_NR_
        27_BELEIDSMIX.pdf
►       Von der Leyen, U. (2020). Political guidelines for the next European Commission
        2019-2024; Opening statement in the European Parliament plenary session 16 July;
        Speech in the European Parliament plenary session 27 November 2019,
        Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Accessed at:
        https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2775/760240.
►       Von der Leyen, U. (2023). ‘Special Address by President von der Leyen at the
        World Economic Forum’, Davos: 17 January 2023,
        https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/speech_23_232
Strategic interplay                                                                     66
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 68 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 69 ======================================================================

<pre>wt Advisory council for
science, technology and innovation
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 69 =================================================================

<br><br>====================================================================== Pagina 70 ======================================================================

<pre>Advisory council for science, technology and innovation
Prins Willem-Alexanderhof 20
2595 BE Den Haag
The Netherlands
t. +31(0)70 3110920
e. secretariaat@awti.nl
w. http://english.awti.nl
</pre>

====================================================================== Einde pagina 70 =================================================================

<br><br>