Caroline VANDIERENDONCK

What Caroline VANDIERENDONCK has said (3)

• “of the cohesion midterm review that extend the incentives for STEP and by the way congratulations because a strike a deal was struck last week at a trialogue on the defense minion nibus that expand STEP scope to defense. So that's a bit the way forward in 2025. To give you an idea of the magnitude, we had close to ninety STEP calls for proposals in direct management including with the EIC because as you remember STEP introduces a possibility to have equity only calls up to thirty million euros and those calls award STEP seals to projects. So we now have more than four hundred STEP seals awarded. What else about 2025? We went on mission to a number of member states to help managing authorities to meet with constituencies to advocate EU action in favor of competitiveness and to answer to their questions. We've also joined a number of events that you know of: EIC days, Hannover Messe and a lot of investment events to showcase those excellent EU projects. Going back to the key conclusions from the interim evaluation report and what we learned from it in terms of achievements: STEP is well integrated in the direct management. We have the STEP portal with excellent feedback from the ecosystems as a one stop shop and a lot of interest of private investors to know about projects that pass the bar of Commission selection of, let's say, directly managed program selection as the best in Europe. So what we do is we pitch those projects together as a banner saying those projects are excellent, those projects are the best in Europe but we don't have the pockets to fund them. So we encourage member states, regions, private investors to look at them. Of course they will do their own due diligence but I think that's a strong signaling effect and that's a pragmatic way to also help the projects for which we unfortunately don't have funding. However, I also want to be very transparent with you also in view of the future MFF about the implementing hurdles that we collected also with a call for evidence from the public. There is almost no uptake actually in the ARRIF funding for example. There was an obligation for member states to consider funding STEP seals in their regions when amending the error rate. This is not happening. There was also an option to reach an error rate funds towards Invest EU in a member state compartment that is going to the member states and that will enable to implement after the end of the RF deadline. This is not happening again. There is also a complex uptake of STEPCL by member states. So what I presented to you is we have a good uptake in cohesion, we have a good uptake in direct management. What we struggle with is to bring one and the other together. So we are communicating to member states those excellent projects for them to consider but we're not there yet in terms of support. There are a number of reasons for them. A key reason is that we have different rules across different programs. We have different costing rules, we have state aid rules coming in. So it's actually difficult for member states to support those excellent projects even if they are in their regions and in their member states. There is also, I have to say, a bit of a mismatch sometimes between where the projects are located and the regions that benefit from incentive under cohesion. So the bridge is a bit difficult. We also manage expectations with STEP seal holders. We don't tell them that there is automatic funding because it's not the case. Finally, the co-legislators' intention with this interim evaluation close was to make sure it is in the discussion to have an ambitious future MFF package. So what have we learned from STEP? We learned there is a really high number of EU funding programs that potentially can support my ontoring of a critical medicine or my quantum factory, different programs, different entry points, different constituencies, different rules. Very hard to find their way. Let's talk about simplification. So that limits the speed and quality of the EU budget. We also heard that there was a lot of appetite for more coherence and combination of funding across programs whether at EU level, at national level and the regional level. And again, let's put yourself in the mind of our SME who has to understand what the EU level is doing, what the national level is doing, what the regional level is doing even before blending potentially with private investment. Finally, strong demand for a user friendly single online gateway to bring all funding opportunities across the EU budgets. I hope you've seen in the MFF package that's what the Commission is proposing on the competitiveness funds, on the Horizon, on the plans and CEF is taking on board a number of these insights. My final word will be so I think we STEP we're trying to stretch what we can do in this MFF but we need to do more and also it's not all about funding and it's not all about public funding. Thank you.”
  Cohesion and rural funding · EU research funding
• “Hello. Thank you very much for the report and for the various questions. I take note on the various points regarding CMU in that regard. You have seen the Saving and Invest union communication from the European Commission. There is a number of initiatives which are ongoing and a number more which will come in the in the next month. I also take note on the various concerns raised regarding the the future MFF. The Commission intends to table its proposal in the month of July. Finally, I also take note on the points and the various position regarding the the safe, the safe instruments in one direction or in another. And in that regard, I would like to, um, to flag, of course, that the budget we have today is quite limited in terms of flexibility, which means we we have to find ways during the course of the MFF to respond to, uh, to political priorities in full respect for the competences and the responsibility of the co-legislators and budgetary and budgetary authorities. So, all in all, let me conclude by thanking the thanking the the responsible authority for the for this report and for the various interventions. We are looking forward to further engaging with you on the basis of legislative proposals. Thank you.”
  Own EU resources · European Banking Union · Size of EU budget
• “Thank you so much for your excellent questions. So I'll take them one by one. On you one chair about what happened to the countries in gray, so two elements there. First of all, reprogramming is still possible. Member state will continue to reprogram in cohesion. Czechia, it's in the pipeline. We are going to Czechia for a mission in February in Prague in Brno to meet with managing authorities, to meet with ecosystems and to, you know, bring their attention to cohesion and also to bring them on the path to directly manage funds. So it's coming. We have a very active STEP national contact point in Czechia. All the STEP national contact points are published on the STEP portal so they can still reprogram. Second consideration, STEP was adopted halfway into the MFF. In some member states the cohesion amounts are not so massive and they were already largely committed, some of them in STEP sectors. We are not starting from scratch. Many member state had taken action already before the STEP incentives were introduced, so good for them. And I can tell you also the countries in gray have STEP national contact points, our active members on our network even though they didn't use the incentive there. It doesn't mean they're not active on STEP sector but you have to consider it with the magnitude of how big those funds are in the various countries and by the time STEP was adopted in certain member states it was already largely defined program and very often well aligned with STEP but we don't do STEP retro tagging. We only consider STEP the programs that we that we checked thoroughly. So that was the first question. So then a second intervention on the benefits to large enterprises. If you look at the STEP dashboard of sealers, so those projects selected indirectly managed program, you will find a lot of SMEs and startups. We have a section called STEP stories where I will give you a few example. So we support surfer uptake of renewable hydrogen production through flexible electrolyzers. We have Accelera Fast, a fast fueling EU AI transformation. We have many examples but it's also true to point out that the more we simplify the more we are user friendly the easier it is for our startup SME who don't have so many FTEs to spend on administrative task. This is for them that we are working that they can that they can grow. So just to balance the narrative on large enterprises it's benefiting all EU enterprises and if anything I can tell you in our mission we insist on meeting SME representatives first because they need to be close to what we do. The second set of questions were also about the STEP portal being fragmented so happy to get more flexible and more precise feedback on that one because as I said this is the one place you can go and track funding opportunities across eleven programs. This is what it is today in the MFF we have fifty two programs in the next MFF the Commission proposal is that we go down to sixteen programs and that we have a single gateway to help to facilitate the interface to access to your funding so I think we are responding to that very strong need. Third honorable member Hector on the Dresden is a very good example indeed on skills that we are trying to for us it's a very good benchmark on exactly what we're trying to achieve with STEP. You're right to point out that the top up for STEP was one point five billion for EDF the Commission proposed ten billion which was already low this is what we got. So the best efforts we can do is to pool funding together in a consistent manner across the board. This is what this instrument is about. STEP is an instrument for this MFF it expires at the end of this MFF. We are approaching it every time as a way to learn for the next MFF be it on IT developments communication to constituencies. I think for me the most important to keep is this bridge between directly managed funds indirectly managed funds shared management because if I am a project in Europe I need support from the EU it's all funded by the EU budgets so it's for us to create that bridge and you know to speak their language and not the other way. So for me that's the strong principle that I would like to keep going forward along with the signaling effects that competitiveness innovation resilience is a top priority of EU action and we put money behind and I think you can see that in the amounts the Commission proposed for the European Competitiveness Fund for and for Horizon Europe in particular. First the question on RF why is this not taken up in the RF? First of all same comment as for the gray country in cohesion they can still do although the window is really kind of closing there and also that there is a lot of actions in favor of competitiveness and sectors which are also STEP in RF just to be clear I think I see in the RF world probably big tickets projects as well so it's a different type of approach and yes the Commission has done everything we can to inform member states we are holding webinars we bring that to their attention we're ready to help them every step of the way and then it's for member states and regions to decide which funding do they wish to use for that STEP objectives. It's true that in cohesion we have the cohesion midterm review that extends incentives for STEP and with a stronger direction and whereas for IRF I would say the focus is really in implementing the existing programs it's really a race around the clock so we are really dealing with different programs different programs here. And finally there was a sorry my Spanish is not good enough the question from the colleague on Spain. First of all Spain is a very active member of the STEP network and it's one of the five member states who reprogram more than one billion under cohesion probably especially in Catalonia very active interest in the STEP seals so that's the map here so you see there are a number of STEP seals STEP projects in Spain so it's for Spain and for regions to decide whether and how much they want to support those projects which again have passed the bar of a very competitive independent selection in the EU programs it's their decision to make. You asked a question on how to make sure they are developed on EU soil. Most of these projects are and are only on EU soil. Croatian policy is funding only projects on European soil and the only nuance indirectly managed program is a case of consortia with our associated countries so some consortia projects have received a STEP seal and they may include some of the associated countries. So that's first answer how do we keep them on European soil. When the CAPEX needs grow when the project grows then there is only that much public funding can do. I think the role of public funding is also to be a catalyst to derisk to crowding private investor and in terms of capital market and private investments the EU is punching below below and below its weight. We have a road map on saving an investment union it's critical the public funding cannot compensate for that. So that's why I represent DG Budgets but I always insist if we want those project to stay of course we need to help them with public funding we need to help them with nonfunding action with regulatory action with simplification action and we need a proper capital markets we know what to do we need to do it. And your last question thank you so much for your question on KPIs and value added it brings. For the moment we focus very much on outputs rather than outcome so we hope in our second annual report we can start a bit going into the outcome but bear in mind the scope is quite broad it's digital tech biotech no defense and clean and resource efficient tech and it's not constrained value chain approach so it's a bid for member state to select their projects it may or may not be in the same value chain that the project we support at EU level but we try to bring that more qualitative assessments in our next reporting so watch out.”
  Cohesion and rural funding · EU research funding