Gerard ’t Hooft Spinoza Institute Utrecht, the Netherlands Utrecht University.
Marcel Rommerts Head of Unit Transport Research and Innovation Utrecht, 20 May 2015 EU-sponsored...
-
Upload
jessie-logan -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
1
Transcript of Marcel Rommerts Head of Unit Transport Research and Innovation Utrecht, 20 May 2015 EU-sponsored...
Marcel RommertsHead of Unit Transport Research and Innovation
Utrecht, 20 May 2015
EU-sponsored innovation in mobility management
About a Cow and Manneken Pis
Contents of presentation
• Innovation in transport and mobility
• Message from Nikolaus von Peter, Member of Commissioner Bulc’s Cabinet
• Who wants to milk the cow?
EU-funding for research and innovation in the field of transport and mobility (Horizon 2020)
• Good ideas travel across borders
The role of EU-supported projects in policy transfer in urban transport
Mobility management and transportRecognition by EU
• EU-funding for research, innovation and take up: MOMENTUM and MOSAIC projects (1996)
• EPOMM: from a call for proposals (1998) to a network of national governments and partners – great job done with limited resources
• ECOMM: from Amsterdam (1997) to …. Utrecht (2015)
• Transport White Paper (2011): ''Mobility Management is a .. concept to manage the demand for car use by changing attitudes and travel patterns'' (points 373 and 374 in staff working document).
• EPOMM invited to join EC Expert Group on Urban Mobility
-> key concern: national policy frameworks (horizontal and vertical policy coherence)
Health 9,7%
Food 5%
Energy 7,7%
Transport 8,2%
Climate 4%
Changing world 1,7%
Security 2,2%
Share of Horizon 2020
7 Societal challenges
Transport
6339
Energy
5931
Food
3851
Health
7472
Security
1695
Climate
3081
Changing world
1310
What's new in Horizon 2020?
• Coupling research to innovation – from research to market uptake
• Challenge-based, open topics
• Standard evaluation criteria for all proposals: Excellence, Impact, and Quality and efficiency of the implementation
• Major simplification of financial and contractual rules
• Successful applicants to get working more quickly: time-to-grant of 8 months (some exceptions)
• No negotiation of the grant agreement, what is submitted will be evaluated and will become the technical annex to the contract
• Main bulk of budget still implemented through collaborative projects - consortia with partners from different MS/associated countries
• Externalised implementation
SMART, GREEN and INTEGRATED TRANSPORT
Objective:
"To achieve a European transport system that is resource-efficient, climate-and-environmentally-friendly, safe and seamless for the benefit of all citizens, the economy and society."
The logic:• a holistic, systems approach …• … that recognises modal specificities• … that is focused on the societal challenges …• … and takes into account the imperatives of competitiveness
Examples of topics
• Transforming the use of conventionally fuelled vehicles in urban areas (MG.5.1-2014)
• Reducing impacts and costs of freight and service trips in urban areas (MG.5.2-2014)
• Tackling urban road congestion (M.G.5.3-2014)
• Strengthening the knowledge and capacities of local authorities (M.G.5.4-2015)
• Demonstrating and testing innovative solutions for cleaner and better urban transport and mobility (M.G.5.5-2015)
EAs
REA
ERCEA
EASME
INEA
EACEA
CHAFEA
PPPs
IMI2
FCH2
CleanSky2
BBISESAR
2
Shift2
Rail
ECSEL
EITEIB
The Galaxy of research-related bodies
CLIMA
EACMOVE
ENTR
JRC CNCT
AGRI
COMM
RTD
ENER
ENV
DEVCO
SANCOECHO
MARE
P2Ps
EDCTP 2
AAL 2
EUROSTARS
2
EMPIR
INEA in short
• On 1 January 2014, INEA replaced the TEN-T EA (the Trans-European Transport Network Executive Agency)
• Solid experience in programme implementation and project management
• €37 billion: largest budget of all EAs for 2014-2020
• Expected budget Horizon 2020 Transport: €2.9 billion
• Rapid expansion from 100 staff in TEN-T EA to 318 staff managing 2100+ projects by 2020
• Currently 159 staff in a multinational team of 26 nationalities
• Supervised by 4 parent Commission DGs: MOVE, RTD, ENER and CNECT
>
Information on the transport calls
• Multi-annual work programme 2014-2015: published in 2013
• 2014 call: projects signed and starting from 1 May 2015
• 2015 call: first deadline for proposals on 23 April 2015, evaluation in May/June 2015; second deadline 15 October 2015, evaluation in November/December 2015
• Future calls: multi-annual work programme 2016-2017, publication expected September 2015
• 2016 call: expected soon after publication work programme, first deadline for proposals expected in January 2016
• ……
Lessons learned from the first calls
• Proposals need to respond well to the Impact criterion
• No-negotiation principle
• The budget should be carefully planned
• Pay attention to ethical issues
• Check the applicable detailed rules in the annotated grant agreement
• For more information on the work programme and the calls, your first point of contact is your National Contact Point for transport (contact details on the Horizon 2020 Participant Portal)
We need you!
• All project proposals are evaluated by panels of independent experts
• At least 30% new experts for every evaluation
• Mix of competences, backgrounds, gender and geographical balance
• We pay a fee and in case of on-site evaluation in Brussels we reimburse travel costs and offer a daily allowance
• The call for evaluators is permanently open on the Horizon 2020 Participant Portal
• We need more transport experts, we need you!
PhD research
Objective:
''To assess if and how policy ideas, concepts and information are transferred through EU-supported projects in the field of urban transport.''
Design of the empirical research:
• 10 year study period: 1995 – 2005• Projects funded by FP and other programmes• Desk research plus 30 semi-structured interviews with key
informants, segmented in different groups• Case studies: urban road user charging and mobility
management
European transport policyFour stages of development:
• 1st period (1950’s – 1960’s): non-controversial technical and social harmonisation
• 2nd period (1970’s – mid 1980’s): despite Commission proposals and action plans the Council refused to act
-> Court of Justice censured Council for its failure to enact legislation to fulfil Treaty obligations relating to free circulation and cross-border services (1985)
• 3rd period (mid 1980’s – 2000): activist period with TEN-T proposals, first Transport White Paper (1992), launch of transport RTD (1994); Citizens Network Green Paper (1998)
-> Bypassing subsidiarity through the research backdoor-> EU enlargement: Austria, Finland, Sweden (1995), preparation for enlargement: Malta, Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary (2004), Bulgaria and Romania (2007)
• 4th period (2000 – today): shift towards climate/ environmentally responsible transport, increased action on urban mobility - fully integrated
Policy transfer
• Policy transfer is an action-oriented intentional activity that leads to policy convergence (Evans and Davies,1999).
• It concerns policies and/or practices that are actually transferred (Dolowitz, 2003).
• ‘Cut and paste’ policy transfers are the exception, not the rule (Various scholars).
• Complies with subsidiarity principle.
• Criticism: concept pays insufficient attention to importance of context; how to assess policy success or failure (i.e. impact); and the (trust) relationships between information providers and information gatherers.
Understanding policy transfer (1)
Policies and practices transferred inside project networks
Practical policy solutions and tools
40%
Management, administration and
financial procedures
18%
Context information
11%
Policy making and planning
approaches11%
Scientific knowledge and
research methodologies
8%
Sustainable urban transport strategies
6%
Other6%
Understanding policy transfer (2)
Media used:
• In formal settings:- formal exchanges, debates or discussions during meetings; - official written sources of information, such as project
reports and publications;- conferences and workshops, with good, inspirational
presenters; - site visits.
• In informal settings:- informal exchanges during meetings; - informal communication outside meetings, for example
during social events.
Case study analysis: links between projects
• Links between projects ('daughter projects') develop because of a largely stable 'core group' of individuals which moves from one project to the next -> average size about half of the partners-> this group leads and drives the project
• Personal trust-relationships act as 'glue' between the group members
• In certain cases, the 'core group' stays together because it wants to follow a policy life cycle
Case study analysis: projects and implementation
The take up of urban road user charging and mobility management policies may have been influenced by:
• synchronicity in the debate among stakeholders involved (including at different levels of government);
• the presence of policy and knowledge support (for example in the form of a project network);
• the political risk attached to implementation
Overview of project participation
Period 1 Period 2
All participants Coordinators only All participants Coordinators onlyUK AT BE DE FR IT NL ES GR CH SE CZ PT FI MO
1299 9 5 5 5 4 4 2 2 111 1
AT BE DE GR NL UK
321 1 1 1
AT DE ES BE FR IT UK NL PT RO SE GR CZ CH IE
139 87 77 74 44 43211
AT BEIT PT UK
31111
Development of national framework conditions for mobility management in selected countries
CountryStage
1996
Status
1996
Develop-ment
1996-2001Stage 2007
Status
2007
Austria 3 infancy status, non-governmental activities O 4 no national policy, many pilot
projects,
financial incentives (Klima:aktiv)
Belgium (Flanders) 3-4 regional competence, transport plans ªª 3-5 scattered picture, Flanders very
active (example: mobility
covenants)
France 1-2 limited presence, focus on major infrastructure ªª 4-5 Institutionalised through
obligatory sustainable urban
transport plans, national
information system under
development
Germany 4 young topic, pilot status, broad vision ª 4 many bottom up initiatives,
fragmented policy
Italy 1(3) early stage, local examples ªªª 4-5 -- (no information provided)
Netherlands 4-5 well developed, organisational framework,
incentivesªª 5 institutionalised and widespread,
knowledge networks, public-
private agreements, many local
and regional initiatives
Portugal 1-2 early stage, lack of discussion O 3 local pilot projects
Spain 1(3) evolving framework, integration of modes ª 3 many local pilot projects, training
and conferences
Sweden 2-3 sustainable transport policy, political backing,
concept newªª 5 institutionalised and widespread,
national ‘sustainable travel’
programme, national evaluation
tool (SUMO)
Switzerland 2-3 integrated approach non-existent, bottom-up
development, progressive public transportªª 4 no national policy but supporting
legislation and initiatives,
knowledge network
United Kingdom 3 policy discussion, local activities ªªª 5 institutionalised and widespread,
knowledge networks, targets,
guidance, evaluation, financial
incentives
Stages of development: Development 1996-2001
1: Improving alternatives ªªª rapid
development
2: Encouraging less car use ªª steady
development
3: Mobility management in its infancy ª slow
development
4: Mobility management as a project O little
development
5: Mobility management as long-term
process
Link between MM projects and policy
• In most of the countries that were analysed, there is a clear progress in the development of the framework conditions.
• Between 1996 and 2007 the number of countries that has reached the stage where mobility management has become a long-term process, reflected by a full institutionalisation of mobility management, widespread initiatives and the establishment of knowledge networks, has increased from one to six.
• Several interviewees have stressed the important role played by the European Commission in the recognition, development and take up of mobility management.
Influence of projects on policy decisions
• Projects seem to have influenced policy -> but it is not clear from the analysis how far the influence came from ideas exchanged and how far from the EU-project as such
• There seems to be a link between project involvement and change in national policy framework conditions (policy development)
-> however, this doesn’t explain if project involvement has influenced policy or policy has influenced project involvement
• Integration of a local project in an EU-supported project is not a sufficient condition for success
-> without implementation, usually determined by contextual factors outside the scope of the project, transfer is not
successful
Application of the policy transfer concept
• Project networks in the field of urban transport can act as platforms for policy transfer;
• Project participation is people-driven and mainly linked with the wish of an individual, sometimes in combination with the strategy of his/her organisation;
• Trust is an important precondition for successful policy transfer;
• Usually, policy transfer happens in the form of inspiration. Cases of direct copying are rare.
Maximising policy transfer (1)
• Both success factors related to the functioning of the project and related to the take up and implementation are relevant for policy transfer.
• Success factors related to the functioning:• The right project structure and procedures;• A cohesive project network with trust-relationships;• Involving the right individuals;• Allocating the right tasks/roles to the right people;• Managing effectively the risk of lack of focus;• Ensuring sufficient resources.
Maximising policy transfer (2)
• Success factors related to take up and implementation:• Reaching key/influential outsiders;• Inspiring them through communication in formal and informal
settings;• Encouraging them the 'change path' and 'adapt discourse'; • Trust relationships again play a role.
Context factors!
Thank you for your [email protected]
Visit our website: http://inea.ec.europa.eu/
Visit the Horizon 2020 website:http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/