Document

Report
EU-sponsored innovation in
mobility management
About a Cow and Manneken Pis
Marcel Rommerts
Head of Unit
Transport Research and Innovation
Utrecht, 20 May 2015
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
The power of innovation
Mobility management and transport
Recognition 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)
Mobility management and energy
Saving oil in a hurry (IEA, 2005)
Message from Nikolaus von Peter
Who wants to milk the cow?
Horizon 2020
Excellence
in science
Industrial
leadership
Societal
challenges
7 Societal challenges
Changing
world
Security
1695
1310
Share of Horizon 2020
Health
9,7%
Health
Climate
7472
3081
Food
5%
Energy
Transport
Transport
Food
6339
3851
Energy
5931
Climate
7,7%
8,2%
4%
Changing world
Security
2,2%
1,7%
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)
The Galaxy of research-related bodies
>
INEA in short
•
On 1 January 2014, INEA replaced the TEN-T EA (the TransEuropean 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!
Good ideals travel across borders
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 policy
Four 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
Sustainable urban
transport
strategies
6%
Other
6%
Scientific
knowledge and
research
methodologies
8%
Practical policy
solutions and tools
40%
Policy making and
planning
approaches
11%
Context
information
11%
Management,
administration and
financial
procedures
18%
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
All participants
UK
12
AT
9
BE
9
DE
9
FR
5
IT
5
NL
5
ES
4
GR
4
CH
2
SE
2
CZ
1
PT
1
FI
1
MO
1
Coordinators only
AT
3
BE
2
DE
1
GR
1
NL
1
UK
1
Period 2
All participants
AT
13
DE
9
ES
8
BE
7
FR
7
IT
7
UK
7
NL
4
PT
4
RO
4
SE
4
GR
3
CZ
2
CH
1
IE
1
Coordinators only
AT
3
BE
1
IT
1
PT
1
UK
1
Country
Austria
3
Stage
Status
Develop-ment
1996
1996
1996-2001
infancy status, non-governmental activities
O
Status
Stage 2007
4
2007
no national policy, many pilot
projects,
financial incentives (Klima:aktiv)
Belgium (Flanders)
3-4
regional competence, transport plans

3-5
scattered picture, Flanders very
active (example: mobility
covenants)
France
1-2
limited presence, focus on major infrastructure

4-5
Development of national
framework conditions for mobility
management in selected countries
Institutionalised through
obligatory sustainable urban
transport plans, national
information system under
development
Germany
4
young topic, pilot status, broad vision

4
Italy
1(3)
Netherlands
4-5
many bottom up initiatives,
early stage, local examples

4-5
-- (no information provided)
well developed, organisational framework,

5
institutionalised and
fragmented policy
incentives
widespread, knowledge
networks, public-private
Stages of development:
Development 1996-2001
1: Improving alternatives

2: Encouraging less car use

3: Mobility management in its infancy

agreements, many local and
development
regional initiatives
Portugal
1-2
early stage, lack of discussion
O
3
local pilot projects
Spain
1(3)
evolving framework, integration of modes

3
many local pilot projects,
rapid
steady
development
training and conferences
Sweden
2-3
sustainable transport policy, political backing,

5
concept new
development
institutionalised and
widespread, national
‘sustainable travel’ programme,
4: Mobility management as a project
national evaluation tool (SUMO)
Switzerland
2-3
integrated approach non-existent, bottom-up

4
development, progressive public transport
no national policy but supporting
legislation and initiatives,
knowledge network
United Kingdom
3
policy discussion, local activities

5
institutionalised and
widespread, knowledge
networks, targets, guidance,
evaluation, financial incentives
slow
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 attention!
[email protected]
Visit our website:
http://inea.ec.europa.eu/
Visit the Horizon 2020 website:
http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/

similar documents