3. ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking 2?
- Status JU-1 and wishes for JU-2
Key slides presented by Commission and ARTEMIS-IA on the ARTEMIS-JU Governing Board on 2011 May 17
Jan Lohstroh, Secretary General ARTEMIS-IA
ARTEMIS Industry Association The association for R&D actors in embedded systems

9. Observations current JU By ARTEMIS-IA

10. Top level observations current JU 1/2
PRO’s
A new initiative with a strategic top-down approach is up and running with a big value for Europe based upon a well supported SRA
The industry driven projects have a large footprint with a rich content addressing societal needs (see next slide)
Industry’s commitment, represented by ARTEMIS-IA, is unchanged high since the start of the JU
See oversubscription of the calls
for instance call 2010: 28 projects evaluated above threshold, only 11 funded
See our CEO-letter of 2011 May 13
See SRA 2011 (official launch on 2011 May 18)
See work by Working Groups
Combining strengths of many players (industries, small and big, and knowledge institutes) targeted to improve R&D and innovation efficiency in Europe
SUMMARY: programme has proven its usefulness

11. The industry driven projects have a large footprint with a rich content addressing societal needs
Examples are project clusters on:
Safety and reliability (CESAR, RECOMP, MBAT, pSafeCer)
Electric Vehicle (POLLUX in relation to ENIAC-EEECAR and FP7-CASTOR/Smarttop)
Low-power Multi-Core for embedded (SCALOPES, SMECY,)
Energy efficient communities (buildings and districts) (eDIANA , ENCOURAGE and IoE)
E-health (CHIRON, HIGH PROFILE)
“Things of the internet” (SOFIA, SIMPLE, SMARCOS, iLAND)
Manufacturing (iFEST, eSONIA, R3-COP)

12. Top level observations current JU 2/2
Con’s
Commitment by Member States much lower than envisioned, leading to situations where relevant/important projects could not be executed
Increasing number of National eligibility criteria
Very long and different signing procedures by some Member States
No funding for non-R&D (innovation projects), due to national and JU funding rules
SUMMARY: Some very good proposals have not been started

13. OTHER observations Current JU
Pro’s
Impact and visibility of embedded systems in Europe has increased
Con’s
Unbalanced funding by Member States (not in line with the size of their Embedded Systems activities and national demand for project funding)
Significant differences in funding rates between Member States, usually lower than in FP
Large programme overhead (in costs and effort), partly due to the fact that the JU is a Community Body
Considerable overhead effort by project consortia
Large effort by ARTEMIS-IA to collect 1.5% fee needed to fulfill its financial commitment to the JU and still a significant number of free-riders

14. Wishes future JU By ARTEMIS-IA

15. Top level wishes future JU
Future JU with a first call in 2014 JU will be essential for Europe, because embedded systems are crucial key enablers for the future
electronics are everywhere in all our daily lives and continuously change the world and our way of living
Embedded systems will strongly contribute to addressing the grand societal challenges
Finding a construction with stable funding commitments per year is essential
commitments per Member State
Innovation projects should be fundable
by EC only?
Max. 6 calls
More top down and leave bottom up projects to ITEA
Simplification and flexibility needed

16. Other wishes future JU 1/3
Essential boundary conditions are:
A more flexible, lean and mean legal structure than the current JU with its status of Community Body, to enable a truly balanced public-private partnership
preferably by means of a mixed public-private body with a light model financial regulation, as proposed by the Commission for the revision of the EU Financial Regulation and in line with the recommendations of the JTI Sherpas Group;
Better alignment of Member state rules and procedures (details next slide)
A smarter instrument for national and EU co-funding to execute transnational collaborative R&D projects

17. Other wishes future JU 2/3
Elements of attention for a tri-partite continuation:
Continuation of the approach of the present JU: programme is industry driven, following a strategic top-down approach
All con’s of present JU should be addressed
Funding commitments per Member State for the total programme
Balanced funding by Member States
Short procedures in Member States
No additional National eligibility criteria
Possibility to fund non-R&D projects (those to be funded by EC only?)
All project partners to contribute to the running costs
Etc.

18. Other wishes future JU 3/3
Elements of attention for a bi-partite continuation if a tri-partite continuation would not be possible under better conditions:
It would automatically mean:
Equal conditions for all project consortia
Single procedure for all project consortia
Innovation projects can be funded

19. Thank you for your attention!
ARTEMIS Industry Association