• DE - Deutsch
  • EN - English
Parliamentary question - E-002717/2022(ASW)Parliamentary question

Answer given by Ms Gabriel on behalf of the European Commission

1. References to the ‘do no significant harm’ principle (DNSH) in proposals vary according to its relevance to the thematic area and technology readiness levels of the work programme parts. Based on figures from 12 August 2022, under programme parts that make no explicit reference to the ‘do no significant harm’ principle, the percentage of proposals referring to the principle is 2.6%. This figure increases to 29.6% where there is an explicit reference in the work programme (Cluster 4, 5 and 6 under Pillar II and the European Innovation Council under Pillar III)[1].

2. Work programme parts making explicit reference to the ‘do no significant harm’ principle represent almost half of the budget of the work programme for 2021-2022. With the implementation of the European Green Deal, EU actions and policies are in any case required to be consistent with the objectives of the Paris Agreement and the Green Deal oath ‘do no harm’.

In addition, based on the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, the Horizon Europe Environment Health and Safety ethics and integrity guidelines require the application of the precautionary principle for the environment and the long term and activity-based perspective of the no harm oath.

3. Unless explicitly stated in the topic conditions (as for the European Innovation Council), p roject evaluators are not expected to refer to the ‘do no significant harm’ principle in evaluation reports, because this is not relevant in assessing and scoring proposals. As a result, the principle is not mentioned in evaluation reports. Under the European Innovation Council 2021 call, one project was flagged for non-compliance with the DNSH principle. After the necessary amendments, the project was ultimately funded.

Last updated: 14 September 2022
Legal notice - Privacy policy