Horizon 2020 LEIT-Space 2016-participaton rules and lessons learned

Horizon 2020
LEIT-Space 2016-
2017
Rules for participation,
proposal submission,
evaluation procedure
Carmen Aguilera
H2020 Galileo Call Coordinator
European GNSS Agency
Market Development Department

Types of action in 2017 and co-funding rates
• Research and Innovation Action (RIA) - EO-COMPET
Up to 100% of eligible costs
• Innovation Action (IA) - EO-GALILEO
(exception: up to 100% for non-profit organisations)
• Coordination and Support Action (CSA) EO-GALILEO-
COMPET
3

Receipt of
proposals
Individual
evaluation
Consensus
group
Panel Review Finalisation
Evaluators
Individual
Evaluation
Reports
(Usually
done
remotely)
Consensus
Report
(May be done
remotely)
Panel report
Evaluation
Summary Report
Panel ranked list
At the same time:
Ethics Screening
Eligibility/
admissibility
check
Allocation of
proposals to
evaluators
Final ranked list
Evaluation results
sent to applicants
Initiation Grant
Agreement
Preparation
Max. 5 months
Evaluation process for each call

Standard admissibility
criteria
1. Submitted in the electronic submission system before the
deadline  Acknowledgement of Receipt
2. Complete (requested administrative forms + proposal
description + supporting documents)
3. Readable, accessible and printable
4. Respecting page limit (RIA/IA: 70 pages; CSA:50 pages)
o Outside the limit:
 participating organisations (operational capacity check)
CV or profile description of staff carrying out the work
A list of up to 5 publications and/or other research or innovation products
A list of up to 5 relevant previous projects/activities
Relevant available infrastructure/equipment description
Description of additional third parties contributing to the work
 ethics self assessment, data management plan (open access to peer-reviewed
scientific publications)
5

Coordination &
support action
One legal entity established a Member State or
associated country.
Standard
eligibility criteria
1) Content corresponds, wholly or in part, to the topic description
against which it is submitted
2) Proposal complies with the minimum participation and any other
eligibility conditions set out for the type of action:
Research &
innovation action
a. Three legal entities.
b. Each of the three shall be established in a
different Member State or associated country.
c. All three legal entities shall be independent of
each other.
Innovation action
6
Canbesupplementedormodified
inthecallconditions
Non-eligibilitycanalsobediscoveredduring/after
evaluation

Countries eligible WP General Annex A
to receive funding
 EU-Member States
 The Overseas Countries and Territories (OCT)
linked to the MS: Anguilla, Aruba, Bermuda, Bonaire, British Virgin
Islands, Cayman Islands, Curaçao, Falkland Islands, French Polynesia, Greenland,
Montserrat, New Caledonia, Pitcairn Islands, Saba, Saint Barthélémy, Saint Helena,
Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Sint Eustatius, Sint Maarten, Turks and Caicos Islands,
Wallis and Futuna .
 Horizon 2020 associated countries
Check Funding Guide for up-to-date information whether agreements are
signed (15 associated countries as of April 2016):
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/docs/h2020-funding-guide/cross-cutting-
issues/international-cooperation_en.htm
 Third countries listed in General Annex A
 International organisation of European interest*
*International organisation not of European interest can be eligible for
funding only exceptionally
7

Other countries eligible
to receive funding
Legal entities established in countries not listed in
Annex A and international organisations will only
be eligible for funding:
o if explicitly mentioned in the call text, or
o when funding for such participants is provided for
under a bilateral scientific and technological
agreement or any other arrangement between
the Union and an international organisation or a third
country, or
o when the Commission deems participation of an
entity essential for carrying out the action
funded through Horizon 2020
8

Receipt of
proposals
Individual
evaluation
Consensus
group
Panel Review Finalisation
Evaluators
Individual
Evaluation
Reports
(Usually
done
remotely)
Consensus
Report
(May be done
remotely)
Panel report
Evaluation
Summary Report
Panel ranked list
Eligibility/
admissibility
check
Allocation of
proposals to
evaluators
Final ranked list
composed and
information sent to
applicants
Max. 5 months
Evaluation process for each call

 Excellence, transparency, fairness and impartiality
and efficiency and speed
 Done by independent experts
selected by REA/GSA/EASME from Experts
database on Participant Portal
o Balance in terms of
1. Skills, experience and knowledge
2. Other factors
 geographical diversity
 gender
 where appropriate, the private and public sectors
 an appropriate turnover from year to year
o No conflict of interest !
Proposal evaluation
basic principles
10

Evaluation:
Selection criteria
11
Operational capacity:
• Assessed by the experts during evaluations
• Check if the consortium partners have the basic capacity to carry
out the proposed work: experience, expertise, availability of
infrastructure, equipment, human resources etc. to carry out
proposed activity
• Based on information provided by the applicant in the
proposal (Part B): CVs, publications, references, explanation of
available infrastructure, etc.
• If something is missing at the time of the proposal, include
explanation on how to have it available for the project: recruitment
plans, plans on how to access missing equipment or infrastructure
etc.

Extent that proposed work corresponds to the
topic description in the work programme
o Clarity and pertinence of the objectives
o Soundness of the concept, and credibility of the
proposed methodology
o Extent that proposed work is beyond the state of the
art, and demonstrates innovation potential (e.g.
ground-breaking objectives, novel concepts and
approaches, new products, services or business and
organisational models)
o Appropriate consideration of interdisciplinary
approaches and, where relevant, use of stakeholder
knowledge.
Excellence
Evaluation criteria: Research and Innovation
Actions/Innovation Actions/ SME instrument

13
o The extent to which the outputs would contribute to
the expected impacts listed in the work
programme under the relevant topic
o Any substantial impacts not mentioned in the WP,
that would enhance innovation capacity; create
new market opportunities, strengthen
competitiveness and growth of companies, address
issues related to climate change or the environment,
or bring other important benefits for society
o Quality of proposed measures to exploit and
disseminate project results (including IPR, manage
research data where relevant); communicate the
project activities to different target audiences
Impact

Compulsory Preliminary Business Plan
GALILEO-1,2,3
What: Demonstrate the commercial potential of the product and/or service and
describe how this potential will be realised.
Why: It is an input to evaluate the Impact criteria.
How: Template available in the participant portal.
• Define the proposed offering: the product and/or service and target market sector.
• Review the market sector: structure, size, drivers, market and technology trends.
• Assess the competition: main players, their current offerings and market share.
• Describe the innovation of the proposed offering in the context of the competition and the sector’s
needs
• Summarise potential business model(s) together with possible entry price(s) and costs
• Assess the key risks to market entry and possible options for risk mitigation.
• Outline, graphically, the roll-out of the offering: timescale, sales growth and market share.

15
o Quality and effectiveness of the work plan,
including extent to which resources assigned in
work packages are in line with objectives/
deliverables
o Appropriateness of management structures and
procedures, including risk and innovation
management
o Complementarity of the participants which the
consortium as a whole brings together expertise
o Appropriateness of allocation of tasks, ensuring
that al participants have a valid role and
adequate resources in the project to fulfill that
role
Implementation

Evaluation criteria: Coordination & Support Actions
o Extent that proposed work corresponds to the topic description in
the work programme
o Clarity and pertinence of the objectives
o Soundness of the concept, and credibility of the proposed
methodology
o Quality of the proposed coordination and/or support measures
Excellence
o The expected impacts listed in the work programme under the
relevant topic
o Quality of proposed measures to:
- Exploit and disseminate project results (including IPR, manage
data research where relevant);
- Communicate the project activities to different target audiences
Impact
o Quality and effectiveness of the work plan, including extent to which resources assigned in
work packages are in line with objectives/deliverables
o Appropriateness of management structures and procedures, including risk and innovation
mgt
o Complementarity of the participants which the consortium as a whole brings together
expertise
o Appropriateness of allocation of tasks, ensuring that al participants have a valid role and
adequate resources in the project to fulfill that role
Implementation

 Evaluation scores are awarded per criterion,
scale from 0 to 5, half point scores may be given
 Maximum score: 15
 Individual criteria threshold: 3
 Total score threshold: 10
Proposal scoring
17
1. Per criterion: Assessment,
comments, justifications
Excellence:
"The
objectives ….."
Impact:
"The innovation
capacity….."
Quality and efficiency of
the implementation:
"The management ….."
4,0 4,5
3,5
 Σ 12,0 out of 15,0
2. Matching scores

 Done by experts in panel review
 1 ranked list per topic or per group of topics with a
dedicated budget
 Preparation: "cross-reading"
Ranking
of proposals
20
11,514,513,5
14,0

H2020 Space calls 2017 evaluation planning
Receipt of
proposals
Individual
evaluation
Consensus
group
Panel
Review
Finalisation
1 March 2017: Closing of Call
June 2017: Ethics screening
July – August 2017 Inform applicants
Time-To-Grant (TTG): 8 months
Eligibility
check
Allocation of
proposals to
evaluators
Individual
Evaluation
Reports
(done
remotely)
Consensus
Report
Panel report
Evaluation
Summary Report
Cross-readings
Panel ranked list
Final ranked list
Evaluation
results sent to
applicants
Initiation Grant
Agreement
Preparation
Remote evaluations
April – May 2017
Central evaluations
May – June 2017
Time-To-Inform (TTI): 5 months
GAP
November 2017
GAP ending
All Grant
Agreements
signed
*Legal limit for TTI is 1.8.2017

Be focused and specific
Build on fairly mature application or business concepts and fill the gap
Explain what is new, your added value, how you will move forward
Build on technical and market understanding and expertise
Ideally, entities with sufficient knowledge of specific markets
Consortium bringing all needed competences: clear roles, no overlap
Demonstrate a clear motivation to commercialise the products and services
Market entry plan (marketing strategy & business plan)
Previous achievements in the specific market
Show your commitment and capability to go to market
Focus on practical impact
Include trials, demonstration, testing involving final users in their real life procedures
 Produce practical tools useful for the GNSS developer community
Select applications where EGNOS and Galileo differentiators
are key for the product/service success
Successful proposal- some hints and GSA lessons learnt

Stand out from the crowd!
• DO use real EGNOS and Galileo signals. If simulations are needed, explain why and how.
• DO include references to previous research and results: available technologies,
prototypes, infrastructure, results and what/how you will build on them
• DO use the GSA Market report to build your business plan and be realistic
• DO involve newcomers. Especially partners with market access and innovation track
record in GNSS applications are an asset
• DON’T just integrate a GNSS receiver, but focus on E-GNSS research and its differentiators
• DON’T limit yourself to the GNSS applications listed in the WP, these are examples
• DON’T focus on GNSS receiver development, the objective of the call is applications
• DON’T wait until the last minute to submit your proposal

Some myths
A good mix of nationalities is important
All evaluators are academics with no
business experience
Letters of interest are important (when they
are not ready to become partners)
Consortia that are already in a funded
project have a much higher probability of
success.
Focus on expertise and complementarity
Mix of evaluators with business and technical
background
Commitment, resources and role of external
participants must be explained
Ensure track record of successful innovation
and access to the target market. We look for
commercially viable projects and do not need
follow-on funding

Horizon 2020
LEIT-Space 2016-
2017
How to prepare a good
proposal
Virginia Puzzolo
Head of the Project Management Sector
European Commission
Research Executive Agency
REA.B1 Space Research

Call Content
External vs internal
success factors
 Open or top-down Topics
 Budget availability
Evaluation
criteria
Proposal structure
H2020 Rules
 Eligibility
 Admissibility

• Carefully read the Call topics text
and additional documents: proposal
content and consortium composition
should answer scope and expected
impacts of the Call topic.
Know your
success factors
• Your idea may fit better in other calls?
Check the Calls launched within
• the "Excellent Science" Programme
• the "Societal Challenges" Programme
• SME actions
• Fast track to Innovation Pilot
• Resubmissions:
• The call topic may have slightly
changed from previous call
• Update it as 2-3 years is
a long time in science / technology

31
TopicsTopics
Calls for proposalsCalls for proposals
Topics
Specific challenge
Scope
Expected Impact
The 'problem'
Identifies the aspects of the challenge that
needs to be tackled.
WP text does not outline the expected solutions
to the problem, nor the approach to be taken by
the applicant ("non-prescriptive" approach)
Calls for proposals
H2020 Space
Work Programme
The 'problem in detail'
Provides more details on the specific
challenge by specifying a perimeter to the
problem described
The 'change' to be achieved
Provides a broad description of what is the
impact to be achieved through the
project(s) to be funded.
The dissemination and exploitation of future
research results are vital for the impact
WP structure of the
'calls‘ & ‘topics’

Demonstrate WHAT – WHY – HOW !
An excellent idea is the basis of a good
proposal but is not sufficient….
The expected impacts and
implementation aspects
are as important !
The proposal should excel in
each single criterion !
Be specific in your objectives and
expected impacts and clearly
demonstrate how you aim to implement
and sustain them
Quality = key to
success
Proposal – PART B
1. Excellence
1.1 Objectives
1.2 Relation to the work
programme
1.3 Concept and methodology
1.4 Ambition
2. Impact
2.1 Expected impacts
2.2 Measures to maximise impact
a) Dissemination and exploitation of
results
b) Communication activities
3. Implementation
3.1 Work plan — Work packages,
deliverables
3.2 Management structure,
milestones and procedures
3.3 Consortium as a whole
3.4 Resources to be committed

Crt 1.1 - Clarity and pertinence of the
objectives
1. EXCELLENCE
PART B - 1. Excellence
1.1 Objectives -> clear, measurable, realistic and
achievable within project duration
1.2 Relation to the work programme
explain how your proposal addresses the specific
challenge and scope of the work programme topic
1.3 Concept and methodology
(a)Concept
• Describe and explain the overall concept + main
ideas, models or assumptions involved.
• Technology Readiness Levels
• Links with other projects/activities
• Identify any inter-disciplinary considerations and,
where relevant, use of stakeholder knowledge;
(a)Methodology
• Describe and explain the overall methodology
1.4 Ambition
• advance beyond the state-of-the-art
• extent the proposed work is ambitious
• Describe the innovation potential
Crt 1.2 - Soundness of the concept, and
credibility of the proposed methodology
BE CAREFULL with HIGH TRL and
plan well the activities - resources
needed to achieve them
Crt 1.3 - Extent that proposed work is
beyond the state of the art, and
demonstrates innovation potential
Crt 1.4 - Appropriate consideration of
interdisciplinary approaches and, where
relevant, use of stakeholder knowledge.
Who are your stakeholders, USERS,
CUSTOMERS? How do you plan to
use their knowledge ?

Innovation ≠ Invention
(an invention can grow into innovation by proper exploitation)
"Innovation is about satisfying needs and wants and
delivering tangible benefits"
H2020 aims for a balanced approach to research and
innovation, not only limited to the development of new
products and services on the basis of scientific and
technological breakthroughs (=research dimension), but also
incorporating aspects such as the use of existing
technologies in novel applications, continuous
improvement and non- technological and social
innovation (=innovation dimension).
Innovation dimension
in H2020

Innovation in the
Evaluation criteria
Enhancing innovation capacity : (Any substantial
impacts not mentioned in the WP, that would enhance
innovation capacity; create new market opportunities,
strengthen competitiveness and growth of companies, .. )
 Addressing barriers/obstacles, and any framework
conditions such as regulation and standards;
 of the participating organisations/research community
by enabling new processes or partnerships beyond
the project consortium.
Innovation potential : (e.g. ground-breaking
objectives, novel concepts and approaches, new
products, services or business and organisational
models).
Innovation management = is a process which
requires an understanding of both market and
technical problems, with a goal of successfully transfer
the innovations developed.
 Is innovation management clearly assigned?
 How will innovation management be taken care of?
 Are concrete innovation tools identified? ...

2. IMPACT
PART B - 2. Impact
2.1 Expected impacts
• each of the expected impacts mentioned under
the relevant topic
• any substantial impacts not mentioned in the
work programme
• Describe any barriers/obstacles, and any framework
conditions
2.2 Measures to maximise impact
a) Dissemination and exploitation of results
• draft ‘plan for the dissemination and
exploitation of the project's results’
• Business plan where relevant
• Outline the strategy for knowledge management
and protection (incl IPR)
• Open Research Data -> information on how the
participants will manage the research data generated
and/or collected during the Project
a) Communication activities
• promoting the project and its findings
-> tailored to different target audiences, including groups
beyond the project's own community
Crt 2.1 - The extent to which the outputs
would contribute to the expected impacts
listed in the work programme under the
relevant topic
Crt 2.2 - Any substantial impacts not
mentioned in the WP, that would enhance
innovation capacity; create new market
opportunities, strengthen competitiveness
and growth of companies, address issues
related to climate change or the
environment, or bring other important
benefits for society
Crt 2.3 - Quality of proposed measures to
• exploit and disseminate project results
(including IPR, manage research data
where relevant)
• communicate the project activities to
different target audiences

Dissemination – one direction path (mainly presenting results)
e.g. presentation to conferences, publication in peer review journal, etc.
• Dissemination plan: Raise awareness about project outputs
Communication – two directions path (results & project activities)
e.g. organising workshop with users, discuss with customers, etc…
• Communication plan: Tailored to the needs of various audiences, including
the public policy perspective of EU research and innovation funding
Often only general reference to communication activities made and these consist
more of dissemination actions !!!!
Dissemination ≠
Communication

Exploitation plan:
• At which technical readiness level (TRL) do you start and how will
you reach the TRL you aim for as expressed in the objectives of
your proposal?
• What are the needed business model and marketing activities and
how will they be decided amongst partners?
Common mistakes in Exploitation:
• Lack of clear exploitation strategy (especially relevant for IAs)
• Lack of clear indication which results which will be
exploited, in which way, by whom
• IPR issues (access to background, results exploitation) left to the
Consortium Agreement only
Dissemination ≠ Communication ≠ Exploitation
Exploitation

• Management of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR): Demonstration
of specific measures in scope ownership, access/use, etc. during and
after the project:
A short reference on IPR "to be developed in the Consortium
Agreement" is not sufficien
IPR
1.Identify your own background (data, know-how and/or information held or
identified by participants prior to their accession to the action)
2.Verify if background of third parties is needed. If yes, what are their
access rights? Need for authorisation to use and exploit the results?
3.Check the state-of-the-art: existing patents? E.g. via database provided by
the European Patent Office: Espacenet
1.Specify the ownership of the results: Who owns what? Any transfers? On
which conditions?
2.Is there is a need to protect the results? If yes, assign cost. Ensure
appropriate access and usage right for key IP during AND after the project
(results & background)

Open Access to
scientific publications
Open Access to scientific publications is obligation under H2020=
online access at no charge to the user to peer-reviewed
scientific publications
Two main OA publishing models:
o Self-archiving: 'traditional' publication plus deposit of
manuscripts in a repository ('Green OA')
 Both versions contain the same peer-reviewed content, but may be differently
formatted / usually, but not always, with embargo
o OA publishing: immediate OA provided by publisher ('Gold
OA')
 Usually, but not always, 'Author-pay' model (APC)
 Some journals offer both subscriptions and open access publishing to selected
on-line articles (hybrid journals)
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/hi/oa_pil
ot/h2020-hi-oa-pilot-guide_en.pdf

NEW: Open access
to research data
 Open research data sharing applies to the data needed to validate the
results presented in scientific publications
 Additionally, projects can choose to make other data available open
access and need to describe their approach in a Data Management
Plan (DMP), included as a deliverable in the project
 Costs related to data management and data sharing are eligible for
reimbursement during the project duration
 Now by default obligatory for all new topics
o except if they decide to opt-out for example for commercial or security reasons
(see WP Annex L). Projects can opt-out at any stage.
o Proposals will not be evaluated more favourably for participating or penalised for
opting out.
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/docs/h2020-funding-guide/cross-
cutting-issues/open-access-data-management/open-access_en.htm

3. IMPLEMENTATION
PART B – 3. IMPLEMENTATION
3.1 Work plan — Work packages, deliverables
• overall structure of the work plan
• timing of the different work packages Gantt chart
• detailed work description (WP, deliverables, etc..)
• Pert chart or similar (inter-relation of the WPs)
3.2 Management structure, milestones and
procedures
• organisational structure and the decision-making
mechanisms + why they are appropriate to the
complexity and scale of the project.
• where relevant, innovation management
• Describe any critical risks, relating to project
implementation + mitigation measures
3.3 Consortium as a whole
• Describe the consortium
• Describe the contribution of each partner
• If a participant requesting EU funding is based in a
country or is an international organisation that is not
automatically eligible for funding, explain why the
participation of the entity in question is essential
to carrying out the projectm
3.4 Resources to be committed
• table showing number of person/months required
• table showing ‘other direct costs’ for participants where
those costs exceed 15% of the personnel costs
Crt 3.1 Quality and effectiveness of the
work plan, including extent to which
resources assigned in work packages are
in line with objectives/ deliverables
Crt 3.2 - Appropriateness of management
structures and procedures, including risk
and innovation management
Crt 3.3 - Complementarity of the
participants which the consortium as a
whole brings together expertise
Crt 3.4 - Appropriateness of allocation of
tasks, ensuring that all participants have a
valid role and adequate resources in the
project to fulfil that role
AVOID EMPTY SHELLS !
DO NOT FORGET SUBCONTRACTS
and THIRD PARTIES
And explain well HIGH OTHER
DIRECT COSTS

• Each applicant is responsible for:
 identifying any potential ethics issues
 handling ethical aspects of their proposal
 detailing how they plan to address them in sufficient
detail already at the proposal stage so to conform
to national, European and international
regulations
 Part A in SEP – ethics self-assessment
 Part B section 5
Ethics Self-Assessment
by the applicant
How to complete your
ethics self-assessment
Guideline for applicants

In Space: Dual Use, export licenses,
3rd countries
 Does this research have the potential for military applications?
o Exclusive civilian focus of the research must be demonstrated
 Do you need export licenses (for dual use items)?
o E.g., GNC, TPS etc.
 Risk mitigation strategies for:
o Mission creep: change of focus toward military
o Leak of "sensitive" information (misuse)
 Does the participation of Third Countries, i.e., non-EU,
beneficiaries or other, raise ethical issues? Export/Import Control?
The Regulation: Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 of 5 May 2009 setting up a
Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items:
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2009/june/tradoc_143390.pdf

Understand the domain and its challenges
R&D but also market, IPR and regulations, competition
Be clear and explicit
Evaluators must judge only what they read and not on the proposal potential.
Thez have limited time .
Do a mock evaluation
Ask a colleague to conduct a self-assessment of the proposal against each
evaluation sub-criterion. If you don't find the right answer easily in the text,
the evaluators won't find it either!
Optimise available time to prepare your proposal
• Last minute preparations are often reflected in a lower quality which largely
reduces the changes in success;
• Start a draft early + Submit on time
• Incomplete submission is not an Obvious Clerical Error
• Late submission in IT system = inadmissible proposal. Deadlines are strict!
Do not be afraid of letting the Commission see the abstract of your proposal
in order to help us identify the best possible expert.
Optimise your
chances to success

Contact your NCP (National Contact Point) for assistance.
They are there to help you to understand the submission and evaluation
process. NCPs have exclusive access to communication lines with the
Commission for questions related to the Work Programme.
http://ncp-space.net/
For general questions on Horizon 2020, the Research Enquiry Service
Helpdesk can also provide support.
http://ec.europa.eu/research/index.cfm?pg=enquiries
Need for more
information?

Call pages: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities
Work Programme 2016-2017
https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/sites/horizon2020/files/05iii.%20LEIT%20Space%202016
-2017_pre-publication.pdf
Grants Manual - Section on: Proposal submission and evaluation
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/pse/h2020-guide-pse_en.pdf
Guidance for evaluators of Horizon 2020 proposals
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/pse/h2020-evaluation-
faq_en.pdf
Templates for mock evaluations:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/call_ptef/ef/h2020-call-ef-ria-ia-csa_en.pdf
H2020 reference documents:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/funding/reference_docs.html
Communication guidelines for projects:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/gm/h2020-guide-comm_en.pdf
Guide on beneficiary registration, validation and financial viability check Manual:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/docs/h2020-funding-guide/index_en.htm
ETHICS
How to complete your ethics Self-Assessment:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/hi/ethics/h2020_hi_ethics-self-
assess_en.pdf
Ethics Issues Table template:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/hi/ethics/ethics-eit_en.pdf
Some links
47

Call for new
experts
Call for Expression of Interest for new experts for H2020
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/experts/index.html

Thank you for
your attention !

Horizon 2020 LEIT-Space 2016-participaton rules and lessons learned

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (6)

Ähnlich wie Horizon 2020 LEIT-Space 2016-participaton rules and lessons learned

Ähnlich wie Horizon 2020 LEIT-Space 2016-participaton rules and lessons learned (20)

Mehr von The European GNSS Agency (GSA)

Mehr von The European GNSS Agency (GSA) (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Horizon 2020 LEIT-Space 2016-participaton rules and lessons learned