5873115 428625 0 0 -3810 9724390 TALLINNA TEHNIKAÜLIKOOL Ehitajate tee 5 19086 Tallinn Rg-kood 74000323 Tel 620 2002 E-post
[email protected] www.taltech.ee 0 0 TALLINNA TEHNIKAÜLIKOOL Ehitajate tee 5 19086 Tallinn Rg-kood 74000323 Tel 620 2002 E-post
[email protected] www.taltech.ee -3810 428625 0 0 Sihtasutus Eesti Teadusagentuur Soola 8 27 . 0 4 .202 6 nr 11-10/48- 1 6 51004 Tartu Ettevalmistustoetuse taotlemine Käesolevaga taotleb Tallinna Tehnikaülikool ( reg nr 74000323, ak EE201010052037382001 ) ettevalmistustoetust projektile : Estonian Center for Maritime Retrofit (EC- MaRe ) – EC- MaRe ( 101250544-2 , HORIZON-WIDERA-2025-ACCESS-01 ), vastutav täitja R oomet Leiger , Eesti Mereakadeemia . Lugupidamisega (allkirjastatud digitaalselt) Marika Lunden Teadusosakond Lisa: hindamisleh t left 284480 Riina Vilgats 620 3536
[email protected] 0 0 Riina Vilgats 620 3536
[email protected]
Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)3988994 - 17/04/2026
Proposal Evaluation Form
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Evaluation Summary
Horizon Europe (HORIZON) Report - Coordination
and support actions
Call: HORIZON-WIDERA-2025-ACCESS-01
Type of action: HORIZON-CSA
Proposal number: 101250544-2
Proposal acronym: EC-MaRe
Duration (months): 72
Proposal title: Estonian Center for Maritime Retrofit
Activity: HORIZON-WIDERA-2025-ACCESS-01-01-two-stage
N. Proposer name Country Total % Grant %
eligible Requested
costs
1 TALLINNA TEHNIKAÜLIKOOL EE 8,015,485 53.44% 8,015,485 53.44%
2 TEKNOLOGIAN TUTKIMUSKESKUS VTT OY FI 2,103,796.25 14.03% 2,103,796.25 14.03%
3 NORGES TEKNISK-NATURVITENSKAPELIGE NO 2,246,250 14.98% 2,246,250 14.98%
UNIVERSITET NTNU
4 STIFTELSEN HANDELSHOYSKOLEN BI NO 1,734,468.75 11.56% 1,734,468.75 11.56%
5 Eesti Merendusklaster MTÜ EE 500,000 3.33% 500,000 3.33%
6 SIHTASUTUS TALLINNA TEADUSPARK TEHNOPOL EE 400,000 2.67% 400,000 2.67%
Total: 15,000,000 15,000,000
Abstract:
The Estonian Centre for Maritime Retrofit (EC‑MaRe) will establish a world‑class Centre of Excellence that accelerates the green and digital
transition of the Baltic Sea maritime sector. Building on Estonia’s strong technological capabilities and strategic partnerships with VTT, NTNU, BI,
the Estonian Maritime Cluster and Tehnopol, the Centre will strengthen national R&I capacity, enhance knowledge absorption, and position Estonia as
a regional leader in sustainable maritime innovation. EC‑MaRe addresses critical challenges in decarbonisation, hybrid and alternative‑fuel energy
systems, digital resilience, cybersecurity, and regulatory adaptation, all of which are essential for meeting EU Fit for 55, IMO GHG Strategy and
emerging cybersecurity requirements.
The project develops an integrated research, innovation, and training ecosystem structured around five research pillars and supported by
state‑of‑the‑art laboratories, digital twins, and real‑world pilot environments. EC‑MaRe will recruit a top‑tier interdisciplinary team, establish a
dedicated Maritime Retrofit PhD School, and deliver comprehensive training programmes for researchers, industry professionals, and policymakers.
Through the Retrofit Hub, Business Accelerator, and multisite demonstration pilots, the Centre will drive technology transfer, co‑creation, and rapid
uptake of retrofit, digital, and low‑carbon solutions across fleets, ports, and logistics chains.
EC‑MaRe will generate high‑impact scientific outputs, strengthen evidence‑based policymaking, and foster long‑term collaboration with European
and global networks. A robust sustainability strategy ensures diversified revenue streams, industry co‑investment, and continuity beyond the project
period. By integrating research excellence, talent development, innovation acceleration, and policy engagement, EC‑MaRe will transform Estonia into
a key contributor to Europe’s maritime decarbonisation, digital resilience, and strategic autonomy.
Evaluation Summary Report
Evaluation Result
Total score: 10.00 (Threshold: 10 )
Criterion 1 - Excellence
Score: 3.50 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - )
101250544-2/EC-MaRe-17/04/2026-10:19:22 1/5
Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)3988994 - 17/04/2026
The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme:
- Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives.
Overall objectives are well contextualised within EU strategic priorities and national Smart Specialisation priorities, which demonstrates strong policy alignment and
systemic relevance. The framing around the Baltic Sea region further strengthens the proposal’s pertinence by anchoring it in a territorially specific and strategically
important innovation ecosystem. However, objectives related to how the project will contribute to support reforms of the R&I system at regional and national scales
are not explicitly developed. Moreover, the contribution to structural transformation of the host institution and the wider R&I system, including increased Horizon
Europe participation and coordinator leadership, remains only partly articulated.
Most proposal’s objectives are formulated in a relevant and concrete way. They are measurable and verifiable, supported by appropriate quantified targets and
defined timeframes that allow objective assessment of progress. However, certain KPIs are overly ambitious in light of the limited evidence provided on existing
institutional capacity and within the proposed timeframe (for example, recurring revenue-generating services by M60; participation in EU-level policy groups).
Moreover, many measurable indicators are scheduled towards the end of the project, which significantly delays their verification, at a stage when it would already
be difficult to implement corrective measures in case of deviations.
The proposal demonstrates a deep understanding of the state-of-the-art. The understanding lies not only in technological advancement but also in integrating social
sciences and policy research, embedding regulatory adaptation and developing full-scale pilots and testbeds. A credible strategy for moving beyond incremental
innovation towards transformative and systemic excellence is convincingly addressed and well aligned with the expectations for Teaming CoEs. However, the
proposal often positions itself as a regional innovation integrator rather than as a scientific breakthrough driver. Moreover, the proposal does not clearly articulate
how it will generate original intellectual leadership and does not benchmark the planned CoE against leading international centres.
The research component is clearly defined and structurally integrated within the CoE concept, notably through dedicated research teams, governance arrangements
and links to infrastructure, training and sustainability measures.
The HR strategy is overall aligned with European best practices, including the European Charter for Researchers and Horizon Europe principles. However, key
elements related to the competitiveness of employment conditions and the operationalisation of performance management and management capacities remain only
broadly described. For example, the proposal does not fully demonstrate senior-level recruitment profiles, salary competitiveness, or long-term retention incentives
in relation to Nordic partner institutions. Moreover, the human resources plan is relatively limited for a project of this scale, focusing on a center with limited
number of employees.
Recruitment procedures are transparent, open and merit-based, with appropriate international advertising, interdisciplinary job profiles and structured on-boarding
competitive conditions. The recruitment from the quadruple helix institutional spheres is a particular strength, as it supports genuine institutional transformation
rather than academic replication.
The proposal convincingly demonstrates high degree of institutional autonomy. The CoE is designed as a relevant standalone entity outside faculties with
independent governance structures, autonomous recruitment and salary negotiation, independent budget management and authority to define research agenda and
partnerships. The combination of legal, financial, academic and operational autonomy is in line with the expectations of the Teaming instrument. However, the
level of detail regarding the facilities it will use and the extent of their independence is not sufficiently clarified in the proposal.
- Quality of the proposed coordination and/or support measures including soundness of methodology.
The overall methodology is well aligned with the project’s strategic objectives. The proposal adopts a systemic, phased and interdisciplinary methodology, combining
research excellence, infrastructure development, capacity building, innovation support and policy engagement within a single integrated framework. The three-
phase model provides a credible and logically sequenced development path, ensuring institutional consolidation before scaling up activities and transitioning
towards long-term autonomy.
The coordination measures of the CoE and the management structure are well developed and provide confidence that process definition and decision making can
be carried out appropriately. However, the underlying methodological concepts, models and assumptions are not sufficiently defined. For instance, digital solutions
(including digital twin / data-driven approaches) and retrofit optimization do not clearly specify the modelling frameworks, validation datasets, performance
baselines, or uncertainty treatment that would allow robust verification of results.
The proposal well identifies technological, institutional and governance challenges, such as regulatory lag, lack of evidence-based policy-making, and weak
translation of research into practice. These challenges are logically structured and clearly linked to the thematic focus of the CoE. However, the challenges that
directly affect scientific feasibility (e.g., availability and representativeness of operational vessel data) are not convincingly discussed.
Challenges are treated through coordinated actions across research, innovation, policy and skills development. However, solutions are described in general terms
and the operational mechanisms through which they will effectively mitigate the identified challenges are not always substantiated.
Generally, the proposal demonstrates an explicit commitment to open science, fully aligned with Horizon Europe requirements and best practices. The link between
open science and Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) principles ensures that openness is not limited to data sharing but extends to societal engagement,
transparency, and ethical conduct. Nevertheless, open science practices are not described with sufficient technical detail. The proposal does not clearly specify
which datasets will be openly accessible by default, e.g. which outputs will be restricted due to industrial confidentiality.
Criterion 2 - Impact
Score: 3.00 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - )
101250544-2/EC-MaRe-17/04/2026-10:19:22 2/5
Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)3988994 - 17/04/2026
The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme:
- Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the work programme, and the likely scale and significance
of the contributions from the project.
The proposal provides a clear and coherent mapping between CoE’s activities and the expected outcomes of the Teaming call and the broader WIDERA
“Destination” objectives. Medium-term outcomes are well articulated. Long-term impacts are convincingly framed and aligned with EU policy priorities. The
contribution to and alignment with national Smart Specialisation and the Estonian RDI Strategy 2021–2035 is explicitly described. However, the contribution to
structural transformation at national R&I system level, the reform instruments and measurable indicators, also wider Horizon Europe participation beyond the
CoE, are only partly substantiated and not clearly defined.
The expected impacts are relevant to the areas identified in the proposal, particularly those related to maritime activities in the Baltic region. The proximity to
industry is positively valued, as is the intention to integrate much of the existing innovation into practical applications that can benefit the relevant stakeholders. The
proposal also convincingly reflects the potential to generate significant academic impact at national level. However, the wider European uptake beyond the Baltic
region is asserted rather than empirically justified. Impact is framed mainly in terms of capability-building and service provision. Moreover, the proposal does not
fully quantify expected economic effects (e.g. projected turnover increase, job creation, SME scaling indicators) nor its projected improvement in competitive
funding performance that remains insufficiently operationalised.
The proposal acknowledges some relevant external barriers including regulatory uncertainty in maritime decarbonisation, dependency on EU climate policy
trajectories, market volatility in retrofit investment cycles, and industrial readiness constraints, but it does not directly address the potential barriers to achieving
expected outcomes and impacts. Moreover, barriers are discussed mostly at a high strategic level, with limited prioritisation, and those market-related (e.g. lack of
demand for services, reluctance of shipowners to invest in retrofit) are not deeply analysed.
Mitigation relies on credible mechanisms such as strong policy engagement, pilot projects, regulatory dialogue, industry co-development, and diversification of
services. However, some mitigation strategies rely too heavily on stakeholder engagement and ecosystem integration.
The proposal demonstrates credible potential to strengthen national maritime innovation capacity. The integration of industry actors, shipyards, and retrofit value
chains provides a plausible pathway for regional economic benefit. However, the proposal does not provide sufficient socio-economic estimates.
The investment plan combines EU support, national funding and industrial engagement. This provides a structurally credible foundation for infrastructure and
recruitment during the project period. It outlines the main investment items, yet addresses the timing dimension only superficially across the three phases of the
center’s life cycle up to its final operation.
The cost-benefit analysis focuses mainly on institutional benefits rather than wider societal effects and it does not clearly quantify expected return on investment
from retrofit services, licensing models, or technology transfer mechanisms. Revenue projections are not supported by detailed market evidence or sensitivity
analysis. Moreover, it does not describe a strong long-term institutional support framework, which could pose a risk if the ambitious revenue targets from services
do not materialize as expected.
The letter of commitment from the Ministry does not sufficiently describe important elements of the complementary funding, such as the cost categories, the
activities planned and the payment timetable. Another letter of commitment from the Baltic Hydrogen Group misses on the payment timetable.
- Suitability and quality of the measures to maximise expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation plan,
including communication activities.
The communication, dissemination and exploitation strategy is appropriate, supported by a comprehensive set of measures proportionate to the objectives to be
achieved. It combines appropriately high-impact scientific publications and participation in international conferences with the organization of dedicated research
events, fostering knowledge exchange at European and Baltic level. The creation of a relevant digital knowledge-sharing ecosystem further strengthens accessibility
and the long-term usability of results. In addition, targeted outreach to industry and policymakers through technical guidelines, policy briefs, and stakeholder
roundtables demonstrates a coherent and effective approach to ensuring two-way knowledge transfer. However, there is limited prioritisation, all audiences and
channels are treated as equally important, which dilutes strategic focus. Moreover, the dissemination logic is largely output-driven rather than outcome-driven, and
international dissemination beyond the Baltic/Nordic region is mentioned but not clearly strategised. Furthermore, the operational exploitation pathway is
insufficiently detailed. The proposal does not clearly define which outputs are intended for commercial scaling or which will remain pre-competitive research tools.
The proposal complies with Horizon Europe rules and foresees the establishment of a consortium agreement covering ownership, access rights, and intellectual
property management. However, the operational design of IP management is insufficiently developed. The IP strategy remains generic, with very few details on IP
governance structures, ownership rules between partners, decision-making processes for patenting, revenue sharing models and types of outputs expected to be
patented.
Criterion 3 - Quality and efficiency of the implementation
Score: 3.50 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - )
101250544-2/EC-MaRe-17/04/2026-10:19:22 3/5
Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)3988994 - 17/04/2026
The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme:
- Quality and effectiveness of the work plan, assessment of risks, and appropriateness of the effort assigned to work packages, and the resources
overall.
The overall work plan is clearly aligned with the strategic objectives of the project. Each work package directly supports one or more objectives, ensuring strong
vertical coherence between vision, objectives and implementation. The proposed duration is realistic and well justified for establishing a Centre of Excellence with
infrastructure deployment. However, alignment between some of the objectives and corresponding tasks within the implementation plan lacks clarity. For example,
cybersecurity is strongly emphasized as an objective, yet this emphasis is not proportionally reflected in the level of detail within the activity plan.
The work packages' (WPs) components are well designed, comprehensive and mutually reinforcing. The interrelations between WPs are clear and appropriate.
Deliverables and milestones are generally well-timed and relevant, especially for institutional establishment, infrastructure development, stakeholder platforms,
pilot actions. Deliverables are largely management-oriented or activity-based and there are limited number of deliverables explicitly linked to quantified scientific
outputs.
In general, effort allocation in person-months is consistent with the overall activities, with substantial resources devoted to research capacity, innovation services,
coordination and management. However, the proposal does not fully detail the distribution of person-months per WP in relation to workload intensity, especially
for infrastructure-heavy WPs and pilot-intensive activities.
The proposal identifies relevant internal and financial risks. Likelihood and severity are relevant, and risks are well linked to WPs, demonstrating structured
awareness. However, some risks remain relatively generic and are not explicitly prioritised in terms of criticality for implementation. The proposal also does not
sufficiently demonstrate critical risks related to delays in infrastructure installation or recruitment.
Mitigation measures are generally appropriate. However, mitigation strategies remain qualitative and descriptive, with limited contingency planning. For example,
in case of pilot under-performance, alternative technical routes or decision gates are not clearly described.
The overall EU budget is proportionate to the scale of institutional development and technical ambition. Investment in infrastructure, recruitment, and pilot activities
aligns with the objectives. Budget allocation across categories is balanced and coherent with activities. There is a significant investment in human resources that
reflects the project’s core objective of capacity-building. Also, the resources for communication, training and innovation support are consistent with impact
ambitions. However, there are several inconsistencies across different sections of the proposal, particularly concerning the allocation of indirect costs, travel and
subsistence, and other goods, works and services, which do not fully align between the narrative explanations and the budget tables.
The proposal confirms an amount of EUR 1.5 million to be dedicated to the research component.
- Capacity and role of each participant, and extent to which the consortium as a whole brings together the necessary expertise.
The consortium brings together a well-balanced and complementary set of partners covering the expertise required to deliver the project’s objectives. The
coordinator provides strong national anchoring and domain expertise. The leading partners contribute differentiated capacities in decarbonisation and piloting,
cybersecurity and digital infrastructures, as well as regulatory and economic analysis.
The inclusion of the national industry cluster and the public innovation agency strengthens industrial relevance, innovation uptake and entrepreneurship support.
This composition enables an interdisciplinary approach integrating engineering, digital technologies, governance and innovation management. The win-win situation
is convincingly demonstrated by the benefits to both the coordinator and the leading partners. The long-term strategic benefits for leading partners beyond general
collaboration and dissemination are, however, less clearly outlined.
The consortium brings together all the required capabilities, roles are coherent, technically appropriate and aligned with expertise profiles. In addition, the
participation of partners tasked with strengthening communication, dissemination, and exploitation, such as Tehnopol and Estonian Maritime Cluster, is positively
valued. The consortium includes strong expertise in industrial and commercial domains. The combined capacities provide a solid foundation for exploitation and
market-oriented uptake of project results.
Resource allocation to partners is proportionate to advisory and technical contributions.
The consortium demonstrates relevant expertise in cross-cutting dimensions. Open science practices and gender equality considerations are addressed at project
level, and the public innovation agency further supports governance and ecosystem-related aspects.
Scope of the application
Status: Yes
Comments (in case the proposal is out of scope)
Not provided
Exceptional funding
Except when explicitly allowed in the topic, any entity from a non-associated third country and International Organisations (other than IEROs) can only
participate as Associated Partners in CSAs (it cannot receive funding). There is no difference between entities established in low/middle income countries
and developed countries.
If exceptional funding is allowed in the CSA topic, a third country participant/international organisation not listed in the General Annex to the Main Work
Programme may exceptionally receive funding if their participation is essential for carrying out the project (for instance due to outstanding expertise,
access to unique know-how, access to research infrastructure, access to particular geographical environments, possibility to involve key partners in
emerging markets, access to data, etc.). (For more information, see the HE programme guide )
Please list the concerned applicants and requested grant amount and explain the reasons why.
Based on the information provided, the following participants should receive exceptional funding:
Not provided
Based on the information provided, the following participants should NOT receive exceptional funding:
Not provided
101250544-2/EC-MaRe-17/04/2026-10:19:22 4/5
Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)3988994 - 17/04/2026
Use of human embryonic stem cells (hESC)
Status: No
If YES, please state whether the use of hESC is, or is not, in your opinion, necessary to achieve the scientific objectives of the proposal and the
reasons why. Alternatively, please state if it cannot be assessed whether the use of hESC is necessary or not, because of a lack of information.
Not provided
Use of human embryos
Status: No
If YES, please explain how the human embryos will be used in the project.
Not provided
Activities excluded from funding
Status: No
If YES, please explain.
Not provided
Exclusive focus on civil applications
Status: Yes
If NO, please explain.
Not provided
101250544-2/EC-MaRe-17/04/2026-10:19:22 5/5
Digitally sealed by the European Commission
Date: 2026-04-17T10:25:28 CEST
This document is digitally sealed. The digital sealing mechanism uniquely binds the
document to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European
Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its integrity and
authenticity.
Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a breach of the electronic seal, which can
be verified at any time by clicking on the digital seal validation symbol.
Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111