OpenLobby.EU
Explore

Netherlands Aerospace Centre

NLR

The Netherlands Aerospace Centre (NLR) is the independent knowledge enterprise in the Netherlands on aerospace.

Lobbying Activity

Response to EU’s next long-term budget (MFF) – EU funding for competitiveness

7 Nov 2025

1. Restore the target of 60% of Horizon Europes budget to collaborative R&I To sustain Europes innovation capacity and industrial competitiveness, the collaborative research budget (pillar 2) must be reinforced, not reduced. The proposed increase is lower for pillar 2 than for the other pillars and represents a relative weakening. NLR therefore supports raising pillar 2s share to at least 60 % of HEs budget. 2. Avoid diverting Horizon Europe funding HE funding must remain fully ring-fenced, so budgets cannot be re-allocated when new priorities arise. RTOs may experience budget cuts part way through their programmes lifecycle. The long development times in aerospace R&I make this especially difficult. The ECF should therefore complement, not compete with, HE building on its structures, governance, and collaborative networks. 3. Scale up investments in Technology Infrastructures NLR operates key TIs, such as wind tunnels and research aircraft, and the demand for these continues to grow. The 10.9 billion funding foreseen for research and technology infrastructures (RTIs) will fall short of actual needs, estimated at 1316 billion for TIs by 2030 in a recent European Investment Bank study. The RTI budget must therefore be increased and closely coordinated with the ECFs sectoral windows and HE. 4. Clarify governance structures and joint programming between the ECF and Horizon Europe The link between HE and the ECF must be clearly defined and transparently governed. It is essential to specify how future work programmes will be co-created, designed and approved, while strengthening existing co-creation mechanisms such as technology platforms, industrial alliances and associations. 5. Safeguard RTOs influence in ECF/HE governance NLR is concerned about the ECs intention to rely on delegated acts for implementing the new R&I framework. Transparent and inclusive governance is essential to ensure that European research programmes remain co-created and aligned with the needs of RTOs, Member States, SMEs and industry. NLR therefore calls for maintaining robust comitology procedures and structured stakeholder consultation. 6. Ensure that simplification truly supports collaboration and quality Simplifying HE must genuinely reduce administrative burden and strengthen European collaboration, not weaken it. Measures such as lump-sum funding risk shifting workload to the proposal phase, discouraging smaller actors, and reducing cooperation among partners. When call objectives are vague, applicants submit a higher volume of diverse proposals, which drives down success rates; increases administrative burden, wasting valuable R&I resources; makes evaluation less consistent; reduces the impact of funded projects; and disadvantages smaller, disruptive players as their niche will be lost. 7. Design moonshot projects for lasting European competitiveness NLR appreciates the EC proposing a moonshot initiative on smart and clean aviation. However, the current proposals lack clarity on implementation and coordination across EU instruments. Their design, funding, and governance need to be clearly defined and strategically aligned. To succeed, moonshots must integrate HE and the ECF under a coherent governance structure and draw on complementary sources, e.g., Innovation Fund, CEF, and IPCEI. 8. Support dual-use innovation while keeping Horizons civil focus Research that has both civil and defence applications can strengthen Europes resilience, security, and industrial competitiveness. However, this should not dilute Horizon Europes civil and collaborative mission. NLR supports a balanced approach where the ECF allows dual-use innovation to be developed in dedicated, clearly governed parts of the fund while HEs core budget remains focused on civil research and open collaboration. Clear governance, transparency, and co-creation with RTOs are essential to avoid overlap and maintain public trust.
Read full response

Response to EU’s next long-term budget (MFF) – EU funding for competitiveness

7 Nov 2025

1. Restore the target of 60% of Horizon Europes budget to collaborative R&I To sustain Europes innovation capacity and industrial competitiveness, the collaborative research budget (pillar 2) must be reinforced, not reduced. The proposed increase is lower for pillar 2 than for the other pillars and represents a relative weakening. NLR therefore supports raising pillar 2s share to at least 60 % of HEs budget. 2. Avoid diverting Horizon Europe funding HE funding must remain fully ring-fenced, so budgets cannot be re-allocated when new priorities arise. RTOs may experience budget cuts part way through their programmes lifecycle. The long development times in aerospace R&I make this especially difficult. The ECF should therefore complement, not compete with, HE building on its structures, governance, and collaborative networks. 3. Scale up investments in Technology Infrastructures NLR operates key TIs, such as wind tunnels and research aircraft, and the demand for these continues to grow. The 10.9 billion funding foreseen for research and technology infrastructures (RTIs) will fall short of actual needs, estimated at 1316 billion for TIs by 2030 in a recent European Investment Bank study. The RTI budget must therefore be increased and closely coordinated with the ECFs sectoral windows and HE. 4. Clarify governance structures and joint programming between the ECF and Horizon Europe The link between HE and the ECF must be clearly defined and transparently governed. It is essential to specify how future work programmes will be co-created, designed and approved, while strengthening existing co-creation mechanisms such as technology platforms, industrial alliances and associations. 5. Safeguard RTOs influence in ECF/HE governance NLR is concerned about the ECs intention to rely on delegated acts for implementing the new R&I framework. Transparent and inclusive governance is essential to ensure that European research programmes remain co-created and aligned with the needs of RTOs, Member States, SMEs and industry. NLR therefore calls for maintaining robust comitology procedures and structured stakeholder consultation. 6. Ensure that simplification truly supports collaboration and quality Simplifying HE must genuinely reduce administrative burden and strengthen European collaboration, not weaken it. Measures such as lump-sum funding risk shifting workload to the proposal phase, discouraging smaller actors, and reducing cooperation among partners. When call objectives are vague, applicants submit a higher volume of diverse proposals, which drives down success rates; increases administrative burden, wasting valuable R&I resources; makes evaluation less consistent; reduces the impact of funded projects; and disadvantages smaller, disruptive players as their niche will be lost. 7. Design moonshot projects for lasting European competitiveness NLR appreciates the EC proposing a moonshot initiative on smart and clean aviation. However, the current proposals lack clarity on implementation and coordination across EU instruments. Their design, funding, and governance need to be clearly defined and strategically aligned. To succeed, moonshots must integrate HE and the ECF under a coherent governance structure and draw on complementary sources, e.g., Innovation Fund, CEF, and IPCEI. 8. Support dual-use innovation while keeping Horizons civil focus Research that has both civil and defence applications can strengthen Europes resilience, security, and industrial competitiveness. However, this should not dilute Horizon Europes civil and collaborative mission. NLR supports a balanced approach where the ECF allows dual-use innovation to be developed in dedicated, clearly governed parts of the fund while HEs core budget remains focused on civil research and open collaboration. Clear governance, transparency, and co-creation with RTOs are essential to avoid overlap and maintain public trust.
Read full response

Response to EU’s next long-term budget (MFF) – EU funding for competitiveness

7 Nov 2025

1. Restore the target of 60% of Horizon Europes budget to collaborative R&I To sustain Europes innovation capacity and industrial competitiveness, the collaborative research budget (pillar 2) must be reinforced, not reduced. The proposed increase is lower for pillar 2 than for the other pillars and represents a relative weakening. NLR therefore supports raising pillar 2s share to at least 60 % of HEs budget. 2. Avoid diverting Horizon Europe funding HE funding must remain fully ring-fenced, so budgets cannot be re-allocated when new priorities arise. RTOs may experience budget cuts part way through their programmes lifecycle. The long development times in aerospace R&I make this especially difficult. The ECF should therefore complement, not compete with, HE building on its structures, governance, and collaborative networks. 3. Scale up investments in Technology Infrastructures NLR operates key TIs, such as wind tunnels and research aircraft, and the demand for these continues to grow. The 10.9 billion funding foreseen for research and technology infrastructures (RTIs) will fall short of actual needs, estimated at 1316 billion for TIs by 2030 in a recent European Investment Bank study. The RTI budget must therefore be increased and closely coordinated with the ECFs sectoral windows and HE. 4. Clarify governance structures and joint programming between the ECF and Horizon Europe The link between HE and the ECF must be clearly defined and transparently governed. It is essential to specify how future work programmes will be co-created, designed and approved, while strengthening existing co-creation mechanisms such as technology platforms, industrial alliances and associations. 5. Safeguard RTOs influence in ECF/HE governance NLR is concerned about the ECs intention to rely on delegated acts for implementing the new R&I framework. Transparent and inclusive governance is essential to ensure that European research programmes remain co-created and aligned with the needs of RTOs, Member States, SMEs and industry. NLR therefore calls for maintaining robust comitology procedures and structured stakeholder consultation. 6. Ensure that simplification truly supports collaboration and quality Simplifying HE must genuinely reduce administrative burden and strengthen European collaboration, not weaken it. Measures such as lump-sum funding risk shifting workload to the proposal phase, discouraging smaller actors, and reducing cooperation among partners. When call objectives are vague, applicants submit a higher volume of diverse proposals, which drives down success rates; increases administrative burden, wasting valuable R&I resources; makes evaluation less consistent; reduces the impact of funded projects; and disadvantages smaller, disruptive players as their niche will be lost. 7. Design moonshot projects for lasting European competitiveness NLR appreciates the EC proposing a moonshot initiative on smart and clean aviation. However, the current proposals lack clarity on implementation and coordination across EU instruments. Their design, funding, and governance need to be clearly defined and strategically aligned. To succeed, moonshots must integrate HE and the ECF under a coherent governance structure and draw on complementary sources, e.g., Innovation Fund, CEF, and IPCEI. 8. Support dual-use innovation while keeping Horizons civil focus Research that has both civil and defence applications can strengthen Europes resilience, security, and industrial competitiveness. However, this should not dilute Horizon Europes civil and collaborative mission. NLR supports a balanced approach where the ECF allows dual-use innovation to be developed in dedicated, clearly governed parts of the fund while HEs core budget remains focused on civil research and open collaboration. Clear governance, transparency, and co-creation with RTOs are essential to avoid overlap and maintain public trust.
Read full response

Response to European strategy on research and technology infrastructures

22 May 2025

Research Infrastructures (RIs) and Technology Infrastructures (TIs) are a core asset for European research, strategic autonomy and competitiveness. A dedicated supporting strategy for Tis is still is at the beginning, whilst the EC has widely supported RIs. We suggest keeping a separation of these RI and TI strategies, because of their different maturity levels. We do see the need to advance the strategic approach for Tis as was already done for RIs. Tis in aviation are mostly operated by (public) research establishments (such as NLR), as opposed to commercial entities. They are stably embedded in not-for-profit organizations, which ensure their financial and operational management. Reasons for this include that they: are typically capital intensive, with high upfront costs, expensive periodic maintenance plus upgrading costs to ensure continued service and relevance; and were built in response to national, strategic needs, with supporting investments usually part of national and regional strategies. The European strategy on RIs and TIs should therefore incorporate that: 1. National / regional priorities enshrined by the subsidiarity principle are limiting the relevance and possibility of pooling and prioritisation of investments at EU level 2. Simplified procedures would be welcome as stronger alignment/compatibility between European, national and regional funding would allow a better answer to Tis various needs 3. TIs activities are cyclic nature. For example, for our large Dutch-German wind tunnels that are strategic for aviation, defence and space. They mainly depend on industries development programmes. This requires maintaining their full capabilities in low-demand periods. A support or incentive policy would be needed to maintain these physical assets and preserving the highly qualified personnel needed to operate these facilities. 4. Most TIs have a very long life-cycle (often > 50 years) which implies extremely high and regular upgrade costs. The European Strategy on RIs and TIs should include a specific modernisation effort for their competitiveness, including digitalization, 5. To really support competitiveness, TIs must be a. made accessible (by the fees to be paid for their use point of view), also to SMEs and start-ups; and b. known by these potential new users that are SMEs and startups, which poses an urgent need to raise awareness of their capabilities, also in cross-related domains. Specific actions to consider in the future funding tools:: include digitalization upgrades in the funding instruments (in response to the aging issue); create permanent dedicated instruments, such as vouchers or financial support for technical consulting before and/or after testing, to support SMEs and start-ups to cover testing fees and better preparation / exploitation of results; and a one-stop shop service at EU level to raise awareness. 6. Apart from the legal set-up ERIC, which is involving only Member States, further legal form for TIs need to be developed, also allowing a combination of private partners.
Read full response

Meeting with Maria De Las Flores Diaz Pulido (Head of Unit Mobility and Transport)

15 May 2025 · SESAR Funding on research ARIS

Meeting with Christian Ehler (Member of the European Parliament) and Netherlands House for Education and Research (Neth-ER)

4 Mar 2024 · Research policy

Response to European Partnership for Integrated Air Traffic Management

27 Aug 2019

NLR steunt het gekozen instrument (Artikel 187): Het moderniseren en hervormen van het Europese ATM is bij uitstek geschikt om in publiek-privaat verband te doen. Het vraagt om een strategische en financiële commitment van alle betrokken partijen, van onderzoeksgemeenschap tot aan industrie, van service providors tot aan eindgebruikers. Een belangrijk aspect is ook de ‘seamless’ flow van laag-TRL tot aan uitrol, twee uitersten die onlosmakelijk met elkaar verbonden zouden moeten zijn om de impact van onderzoek te vergroten en de innovatiecyclus te verkorten. Losse calls volstaan in een dergelijk geval niet. Daarnaast is het ‘leverage effect’ van een artikel 187-partnerschap een stuk groter dan wanneer er sprake is van een ‘co-programmed partnership’. Niet enkel in financiële termen, maar ook in de context van standaarden, beleid en harmonisering. Tot slot zijn wij van mening dat een sterk, onafhankelijk partnerschap een belangrijke rol op wereldtoneel kan spelen. Betrokken Nederlandse partijen vergroten hiermee hun mondiale impact. Kijkende naar de criteria voor een partnerschap, zoals aanbevolen door ERAC , voldoet de opvolger van SESAR2020 aan alle criteria. Geef Research and Technology Organisations een expliciete rol om de ‘valley of death’ te overbruggen: NLR is groot voorstander van een continuering van SESAR 2020. Echter, wij stellen enkele aanpassingen voor die het partnerschap effectiever kunnen maken en de impact vergroten. De belangrijkste aanpassing is dat de onderzoeksgemeenschap een expliciete positie binnen het partnerschap dient te krijgen. SESAR 2020 kent een op papier goed doordachte innovatietrechter, lopende van Exploratory Research tot aan Deployment. Echter zijn de relevante actoren in deze trechter minstens even belangrijk als de trechter zelf. De industrie en eindgebruikers zitten logischerwijs sterk in de latere fase in de trechter, de onderzoeksgemeenschap sterk in de beginfase. Onderzoeksinstellingen als NLR hebben echter een essentiële brugfunctie die deze twee werelden met elkaar verbind. In SESAR 2020 constateren wij dat technologieën en innovaties onvoldoende bewegen door de innovatietrechter. Een sterke, expliciete rol (incl. budget) voor ‘Research and Technology Organisations’ in het membership-deel kan deze uitdaging verhelpen en de ‘valley of death’ overbruggen, zoals dit ook in andere partnerschappen gebeurt. Het ontbreken van een sterk commercieel belang helpt tevens om ‘open innovation’ voldoende te borgen.
Read full response

Response to European Partnership for Clean Aviation

27 Aug 2019

Royal NLR fully supports the proposal for an institutionalized partnership (Article 187). Only with broad, long-term commitment from the entire value chain we can move towards truly emission free, competitive aviation. Not only ‘tailpipe’ emissions but also the full life cycle should be addressed, from cradle to cradle. From the tailpipe emissions, not only CO2 should be considered but also other emissions with a climate impact. Because of the new propulsion systems new models should be developed to assess their climate impact properly. Also the development cycle of aircraft should be made shorter and cheaper, to promote the development of more aircraft types and to shorten the time to market of innovations and to lower the threshold for new players. Digital research infrastructures may be necessary. New and existing research infrastructures are more than ever necessary to support the revolution to zero-emission aviation. There should be a clear instrument for using research infrastructures as well as an instrument to set up new research infrastructures The Leader - Core Partner – Partner structure disqualified Research Establishments such as NLR for CfP’s after they had become Core Partner, often in consortia with large industry. This meant that NLR could not support SME’s and newcomers in consortia which resulted in a lower SME and newcomer participation than otherwise. Although the reasoning makes sense, this was an undesired side effect and the Research Establishments could not fulfil their national role. As disruption is necessary in the revolution towards emission free aviation, a new partnership should allow new players to participate through open and transparent instruments. To have the highest impact, the technical work program should be flexible enough to cater the progress of insights and external factors during a 7+ year program. Cooperation and exchange with other EU funded research, for instance in the field of fuel cells and hydrogen or batteries, should be made possible from the start without administrative hurdles.
Read full response