Policy Brief Perceived impacts of P2P supported projects

Policy Brief Perceived impacts of P2P supported projects

Main topic: Good practices, case studies, pilots
Document / search engine: Policy Brief Perceived impacts of P2P supported projects
Framework project: Strengthening partnership programmes in Europe
Short name of the project:
Website link: https://www.era-learn.eu/documents/policybriefimpactprojectlevel.pdf
CORDIS link if relevant: https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/documents/downloadPublic?documentIds=080166e5a384478c&appId=PPGMS
Short description:

The present document is the third annual Policy Brief of ERA-LEARN 2020. It is analysing the impact
of P2Ps and P2P-supported projects. It focuses on the results of a pilot exercise that was addressed
to three bio-economy networks (SUSFOOD, ERA-IB-2 and CORE ORGANIC II) and their supported
projects. The brief draws on the results of the on-line survey1
addressed to project beneficiaries of the
three networks and on the findings of the interviews with network members and project beneficiaries
The discussion of the results is complemented where relevant with some of the findings of the survey
conducted for the ERAC Ad-hoc Working Group on Partnerships in 2018 in order to identify
challenges to implementation of P2P-supported projects.
The results of this work are presented separately for each network. However, it becomes evident that
there is a significant degree of overlap in the recorded findings. Some key shared conclusions worth
mentioning before the presentation of each network and the associated results are the following:
 Participation of countries in the networks studied is underlined by different degrees of interest
to the specific areas addressed, different levels of experience and expertise, funding
resources and research capacity. Well-resourced countries with high interest in the specific
research area are usually leading evolutions in the network, whereas other countries may be
more selective and limited by budget constraints. Increasing the participation of lowperforming countries (LPCs) has been of primary importance for CORE Organic. The measures applied in this regard may serve as good practice for other networks.

  •  When comparing the transnational projects to those of EU Framework programmes, there is
    general appreciation of lower bureaucracy, flexibility, and solutions-orientation. Additionally,
    the smaller scale of transnational projects and the importance of carrying out research at this
    scale was highlighted by beneficiaries as a test bed that usually then leads to larger-scale
    implementation through more ambitious projects.
  • The key factors for the success for the projects are similar to those for networks: competent
    coordination team supported by adequate resources and participatory and democratic
    management procedures within a trust-building environment. One of the most interesting
    issues that emerged during the beneficiary interviews, however, concerns the role of the
    funding agencies during the course of the projects. The support of the national agencies
    especially in case of problems was highly appreciated, while its absence was negatively
    commented. Quick procedures to acquire the national funding is essential for the smooth
    project progress, although that was not always the case, but the requirements for double
    application submission and double reporting and the different procedures of participation has
    put unnecessary burden on the beneficiaries.
    The problems associated with these procedures (different eligibility rules, different proposal
    submission and evaluation systems, etc.) are structural, i.e. they cannot be solved by training
    or longer experience of involvement in transnational projects. These differences across
    national settings alongside the requirement to abide by the respective rules and procedures
    both at the national and the network level form important challenges for project initiation and
    management. They are problems that can only be dealt with structural changes in the way
    these issues are treated within networks.
  •  Overall, impressions by both the network members and project beneficiaries align to a shared
    sense of satisfaction. Based on the testimonies, this becomes even more impressive given
    the small project budgets and the relatively limited funds made available by member
    countries.

Countries/regions described/represented: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonian, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, The Netherlands
Year: 2018