Bio-based IndustriesJoint Undertaking

BBI JU Call 2020 info day (LT)

Dieter BRIGITTA

Project Officer

6 May 2020

Table of contents

• Horizon 2020 vs. BBI JU: similarities & differences

• Call 2020: opportunities, proposal submission &

evaluation

• How to write a good BBI JU proposal

• BBI JU’s partnering platform

Table of contents

• Horizon 2020 vs. BBI JU: similarities & differences

• Call 2020: opportunities, proposal submission &

evaluation

• How to write a good BBI JU proposal

• BBI JU’s partnering platform

1. EU R&I funding programmes

• R&I

– From research (more on laboratory level)…

– …to innovation (closer to market)

• EU funding programme

– NOT based on local, country-specific needs

– EU-wide focus

– Specific proposal eligibility criteria

(e.g. most* proposals: min. 3 independent organisations from 3 different member states or associated countries)

* For RIAs & IAs; CSAs can have only 1 beneficiary

2. Types of action / projects

1 2

3

3. Three main evaluation criteria

Impact

Excellence

Implementation

Impact Impact

4. ‘Open to the World’

• All organisations can participate…

• …but not all organisations are automatically eligible for funding

• Terminology

– EU countries

– Associated countries (16)

– Developing countries

– Industrialised countries and emerging economies

• H2020 online manual, international cooperation section

5. IT environment

• Funding & Tendering Opportunities Portal

– (Previously called ‘Participant Portal’)

– Since BBI JU’s start (Call 2014)

– Find calls & partners, register organisations, submit

proposals,…

• Terminology & help: google ‘Horizon 2020 online manual’

Table of contents

• Horizon 2020 vs. BBI JU: similarities & differences

• Call 2020: opportunities, proposal submission &

evaluation

• How to write a good BBI JU proposal

• BBI JU’s partnering platform

1. Funding focus

• Horizon 2020: broad focus

– R&I funding for health, space, transport, environment,…

– Different (sub)programmes…

– …both ‘Top-down’ (list of topics) and ‘Bottom-up’ (‘define your

own R&I topic) programmes

• BBI JU: specific focus…

– …on bio-based industries (in all their diversity)

– 1 programme, 1 set of rules

– ‘Top-down’ (list of topics)…with bottom-up influences

Industry

-driven

2a. The BBI JU annual cycle

Strategic level: SIRA

Strategic Innovation and Research Agenda

guiding document developed by BIC

+ Scientific Committee

+ States Representatives Group

Operational Level

Annual Work Plan

Drafting – Approval – Supporting

Call for proposals

(RIAs, IAs, CSAs)

Publication &

Implementation

Portfolio management

Reporting – monitoring

Dissemination – comm.

2b. The BBI JU annual cycle

Dec

Apr

• Publication of ‘topic texts’

Sept • Call closes

Oct-

Nov

• Evaluation

Dec• Results to applicants

• Call opens

4

3. Types of action / projects

1 2

3

4. Funding percentages

Action TRL (1) Duration BBI JU funding %

CSA n/a 1-3y100%(2)

RIA 3-5 Up to 4y

IA-DEMO 6-74-5y 70%(3)

IA-Flagship 8

(1) TRL = Technology Readiness Level (value 1-9; higher TRL = closer to

market)

(2) However: de facto no (0%) BBI JU funding for large enterprises

(3) Non-profit beneficiaries / linked third parties may be reimbursed at

100%

5. BBI JU-specific evaluation subcriteria

• Although the 3 main evaluation criteria (Excellence,

impact, implementation) are the same…

• …the previously mentioned differences with Horizon 2020

have been translated into (some) BBI JU-specific

evaluation subcriteria

• More information: see ‘how to write a good BBI JU

proposal’ part

BBI JU: focused & linked with Horizon 2020

• Public-Private Partnership

(PPP) developing

sustainable and

competitive bio-based

industries in Europe

• Partners:

- European Union (via EC)

- Bio-based Industries

Consortium (BIC)

• Mission: to implement, under Horizon 2020 rules, the Strategic Innovation and Research Agenda (SIRA) developed by the industry and validated by the EC.

www.bbi-europe.eu

Table of contents

• Horizon 2020 vs. BBI JU: similarities & differences

• Call 2020: opportunities, proposal submission &

evaluation

• How to write a good BBI JU proposal

• BBI JU’s partnering platform

Call 2020 key figures

• Call timing (tentative)– Call opening: 15 Apr 2020

– Call closure: 3 Sept 2020, 17:00 CET

– Results to applicants: End of Dec 2020 – mid Jan 2021 (tentative)

– GA Signature: By 2 May 2021 (Call closure + 8 months)

• Budget

Type of Action # topics Budget (€ million) Extra

RIA 5 22

DEMO 4 28

Flagship 3 47 (15+16+16) 1 budget line / topic

CSA 4 5 Max. 1 project / topic

Total 16 102

Call 2020: strategic orientations vs. topics

PROCESS

PRODUCTS

MARKET

UPTAKE

FEEDSTOCK

Supply chain hurdles of residual waste

streams; biogenic gaseous carbon; lignin;

MSW; aquatic sources to food ingredients

Enabling technologies; integral

fractionation; recycle composites; extract

bioactive compounds; upscale bio-based

platform molecule production

Coatings; packaging solutions

Access to finance; insight on emerging

technologies; create / interlink bio-based

education centres; underexploited circular

bioeconomy

S1-4

R5, D4

R1-4, D3

D1-2, F1-F3

TOPICS

Call 2020 - RIAs

Feedstock /

Process

R1 – Use enabling technologies to improve feedstock availability and sustainability

for the bio-based industry

R2 – Develop integral fractionation of lignocellulose to produce components for

high-value applications

R3 – develop bio-based solutions to recycle composites

R4 – extract bioactive compounds from new, underexploited and/or recalcitrant

residual bio-based streams for high-value applications

Products R5 – improve the sustainability of coatings

Market uptake /

Call 2020 - DEMOs

Feedstock

D1 – resolve supply-chain hurdles for turning residual waste streams into

functional molecules for food and/or nonfood market applications

D2 – use biogenic gaseous carbon to increase feedstock availability for the industry

Process D3 – upscale the production of bio-based platform molecules for larger market

applications

Products D4 – demonstrate superior bio-based packaging solutions with minimal environmental

damage

Market uptake /

Call 2020 - Flagships

Feedstock

F1 – Valorise the organic fraction of municipal solid waste through an integrated

biorefinery at commercial level

F2 – Turn lignin into materials and chemicals for highend applications

F3 – Produce food ingredients with high nutritional value from aquatic sources

Process /

Products /

Market uptake /

Note: a dedicated budget line per Flagship topic

• F1: € 15 million

• F2: € 16 million

• F3: € 16 million

Call 2020 - CSAs

Feedstock /

Process /

Products /

Market uptake

S1 – Help start-ups and spin-offs to gain access to finance

S2 – Provide insight on emerging technologies for biobased value chains

S3 – Create and interlink bio-based education centres to meet industry’s needs of skills and competences

S4 – Expand circular economy to include the underexploited circular bioeconomy

Note:

• Although all CSA topics fall under the same budget line (total: € 5 million)…

• …max. 1 CSA project can be funded per topic

Table of contents

• Horizon 2020 vs. BBI JU: similarities & differences

• Call 2020: opportunities, proposal submission &

evaluation

• How to write a good BBI JU proposal

• BBI JU’s partnering platform

Proposal submission & evaluation

• Proposal submission

– Similar to Horizon 2020

– Horizon 2020 online manual,

dedicated section (find a call,

find partners, register an organisation, submit a proposal)

– Dedicated presentations, recorded during 22 Apr 2020 info day,

available on https://www.bbi-europe.eu/events/bbi-ju-info-day-

2020

• Evaluation: practical tips & tricks in the next part (« How

to write a good proposal? »)

Table of contents

• Horizon 2020 vs. BBI JU: similarities & differences

• Call 2020: opportunities, proposal submission &

evaluation

• How to write a good BBI JU proposal

• BBI JU’s partnering platform

BBI JU evaluation principles (1/2)

• Horizon 2020 methodology

– 3 main evaluation criteria: Excellence, Impact, Implementation

– Scoring: 5 points per criterion, max. score = 15/15

– Each main criterion: different evaluation subcriteria

– Differences per type of action (CSA, RIA, IA)

• BBI JU-specific subcriteria

– Although the same main criteria and all H2020 subcriteria are applicable…

– …BBI JU also uses some specific subcriteria

BBI JU evaluation principles (2/2)

• Central role of expert-evaluators

– BBI JU coordinates / moderates evaluations…

– …but external experts evaluate proposals:

• First individually / remotely

• Then collectively / in Brussels

– BBI JU topics & proposals are often very diverse / broad…

– …so a ‘big’ and ‘broad’ group of experts is needed

• ‘big’: 5 experts / proposal (legally: min. 3 required)

• ‘broad’: diverse expertise needed (science, business, project

management,…)

How to write a good BBI JU proposal?

• Call 2016-2019 Brussels info days

– « Think like / write for an evaluator »

– Try to put yourself in the position of an evaluator:• Which information would you need to check if the proposal ‘ticks all the

boxes’, i.e. is in line with the (whole) topic text?

• How can you best structure this information…?

• …taking into account the:

– proposal template

– page limits (50p for CSAs, 70p for RIA/IA)?

• This presentation:

– Frequently voiced comments from experts during past evaluations…

– …and how to proactively solve them

« This part is written in a (too) vague / broad way »

Evaluation (sub)criterion How to solve the issue?

Excellence

/

Impact

Dissemination, exploitation,

communication plans, IPR

management

• Be specific (e.g. which conferences / journals?)

• Use quantification if relevant (amount of videos, newsletters,…)

• Explicitly mention / describe IPR management

Implementation

• Management structures /

procedures

• Risk & innovation

management

• Be specific; don’t overuse ‘this will be further defined in the consortium

agreement’

• If relevant, also include non-scientific/technical risks (e.g. business,

social, project management,...)

• Include real – not token – risks, and credible mitigation measures («it

will not happen» is not a mitigation measure)

• Check / remove references to other / old projects

« The proposal does more than the topic requires »

Evaluation (sub)criterion How to solve the issue?

Excellence

Overall concept (topic requires

A, proposal does A & B)

Main question: how ‘big’ is B? If too big, then the proposal might be

partially out of scope, and (too many) resources might be used on

activities not requested by the topic → lower score

Impact

Expected impacts listed in the

topic text

E.g. topic text requires 50% greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction,

and proposal mentions 70% reduction.

• 70% reaches the target → positive evaluation, higher score

• …but the 70% needs to be credible (via e.g. a calculation).

→ A credible 50% reduction is better than a non-credible 70%!

Implementation

Work plan

E.g. overall concept only talks about A, but the work plan included

activities linked to A & B → work plan not in line with concept → lower

score

Evaluation (sub)criterion How to solve the issue?

Excellence

(Going beyond the) state of the art

(SOTA)

• Use a table format: where we are now, and where we want to go

• Ideally, add TRLs (Technology Readiness Levels) in this table

Impact

Expected impacts listed in the topic

text

Clearly describe the current situation (e.g. « we will reduce energy

use with 30% ». Compared to which benchmark?)

Implementation

/

« What is the proposal’s benchmark? »

Evaluation (sub)criterion How to solve the issue?

Excellence

/

Impact

(RIA/IA) Consortium own

contribution

Understand the BBI JU terminology, and include the 3 potential

‘consortium own contribution’ parts in the correct part of the proposal:

• ‘In kind’ contributions = total costs minus total requested funding

(→ budget should reflect this)

• Financial (in cash’) contributions: to be included in part A

(quantification) and part B (section 3.4: qualitative description)

• Additional investments: to be included in part A (quantification) and

part B (section 3.4: qualitative description)

Implementation

/

« The ‘consortium own contribution’ is unclear »

Evaluation (sub)criterion How to solve the issue?

Excellence

/

Impact

/

Implementation

Business case / business plan (IA)

IA-specific evaluation subcriterion: ‘business case and plan’

• (Only) in IAs, you can add a comprehensive business case and

plan after part B’s section 5 → not included in page limit!

• Make cross-references between this ‘extra’ section and section 2,

where you typically should described the exploitation plan

« Where is the business case/plan info?»

Evaluation (sub)criterion How to solve the issue?

Excellence

/

Impact

/

Implementation

Evaluation subcriterion « Appropriateness of

the allocation of tasks, ensuring that all

participants have a valid role and adequate

resources in the project to fulfil that role.»

Even if you are able to convince expert-evaluators that a

beneficiary has expertise, it could still be that their actual

role (what they will do in the project) is unclear or (too)

limited → convince expert-evaluators that you don’t have

‘token’ consortium members, e.g. via resource allocation

(money talks...)

« What is the role of beneficiary X? »

Evaluation (sub)criterion How to solve the issue?

Excellence

Most standard requirements fit best under

‘Excellence’ (biodiversity, logistics, relationship

with other projects,…)

Use a table (left: standard requirement; right: how the

proposal tackles this)

Implementation

• Work plan (standard requirement

‘sustainability assessment – LCA’)

• Business plan / business models

Use a table, explicitly mentioning the ‘standard

requirements’ (→ the expert-evaluator knows that you

have tackled this), potentially referring / cross-

referencing to other parts of the proposal (page limits!)

« How to evaluate the ‘standard requirements’? »

• ‘Standard requirements’ for proposals for the different actions– Annual Work Plan, Table 3, p. 30-32

– Per type of action (excl. CSAs): standard requirements, on top of the topic-specific requirements

How to write a good BBI JU proposal?

• Read / use the Annual Work Plan, which contains:– Topic texts

– ‘Standard requirements’ (table 3)

– A topics glossary (definitions applicable to Call 2020)

– The evaluation (sub)criteria per type of action (CSA/RIA/IA)

• BBI JU website:– The Guide for Applicants (GfA), which contains examples and the

proposal template

– The Call 2020 ‘FAQ for Applicants’ – v2 dd. 4 May 2020

– The SIRA (which contains e.g. the definitions of BBI JU KPIs / expected impacts)

• « Think like / write for an evaluator »

Table of contents

• Horizon 2020 vs. BBI JU: similarities & differences

• Call 2020: opportunities, proposal submission &

evaluation

• How to write a good BBI JU proposal

• BBI JU’s partnering platform (& where to find more info)

BBI JU Partnering Platform

• Database of organisations

• « Find & be found »

• Free

• Accessible via the BBI JU homepage

• Brokerage session / networking

– 1-on-1 meetings

– 23 & 23 Apr

– 12 May

Partner search via SEDIA (1/2)

Partner search via SEDIA (2/2)

• Partner search per BBI JU topic

Partner search via SEDIA (2/2)

• Partner search per BBI JU topic

Other useful information

• Funding & Tender Opportunities Portal (‘SEDIA’)

– Register organisations, topic search, proposal submission,...

– H2020 online manual

• BBI JU website

– BBI JU-specific info (incl. Guide for Applicants (GfA), a regularly

updated FAQ for Applicants,...)

– Info day 22 Apr 2020: presentations & webstreaming/recording

– (Link to) BBI Partnering Platform

Bio-based IndustriesJoint Undertaking

Q&A

Thank you!Thank you!