1(3)

EU research policy Briefing 5 May 2010

Commissions Communication: Simplifying the implementation of the research framework programmes

(29 April 2010) (Link to document: http://ec.europa.eu/research/fp7/pdf/communication_on_simplification_2010_en.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none)

Background: Maire Geoghegan-Quinn, EU commissioner for research, innovation and science, has launched a detailed proposal designed to make EU-funded research projects more attractive. She said a new financial regulation, due to be introduced in May 2010, will pave the way for radical changes in the financials of EU funded research projects. The Communication of 29 April 2010 (Simplifying the implementation of the research framework programmes) provides directions which could be translated into concrete actions, either under FP7 or starting with FP8. The Communication has 3 main strands: a first strand with the improvements and simplifications that the Commission will implement already under the FP7; a second strand with changes to the rules but still under the current cost-model; and a third strand suggesting more far-reaching changes towards a resultbased funding using lump sums.

Strand 1: Streamlining proposal and grant management under the existing rules 1.1. User support, guidance, transparency, IT tools and processes reducing average time-to-grant and time-to-pay by several months By the end of 2010, all processes of grant management as well as a system for expert evaluators will be integrated. Proposal submission and evaluation will be integrated in 2011-2012. Parallel paper stream will be abolished by the use of electronic signatures replacing paper signatures wherever possible, starting in 2010 with the financial statements. A web-based document database and a tracking system for transactions in proposal and grant management will be installed by the end of 2011. 1.2. Uniform application of rules uniform interpretation and application of the rules and procedures The Commission will provide a coherent audit programming respecting the single audit approach.

1.3. Optimising the structure and timing of calls for proposals Larger topics or even open calls with cut-off dates will be considered, in order to shorten the time to the next possible funding application.

2(3)

Two-stage submission might be considered more extensively The Commission will increase (wherever possible) the time between call publication and deadline beyond the standard three months

1.4. Adapting sizes of consortia to the needs in the specific fields, allowing for smaller consortia. This will allow for reducing average time-to-grant and time-to-pay. 1.5. More extended uses of prizes Strand 2: Adapting the rules under the current cost-based system 2.1. Broader acceptance of usual accounting practices. The eligible actual costs could be considered eligible if registered in the organisations accounts according to its usual accounting practice. Such an approach avoids the need for organizations (beneficiaries) to set up separate accounting systems. 2.2. Average personnel costs. Any average personnel cost methodologies applied as usual accounting practice by the organization could be accepted, as long as they are based on actual personnel costs registered in the accounts and any double funding is excluded. Organisations could apply in all cases their usual accounting practice under the sole condition that it is based on the payroll costs registered in the statutory accounts. The only requirement from the Commission would be that the average cost methodology applied must have been accepted in national public research programmes or have been certified by national public authorities. The approach would include all methodologies, including those based on cost centres. Deviations between averages claimed and actual costs would be accepted, regardless of the size or sense of the deviation. 2.3. Limiting the variety of rules (a) Reduce the number of combinations between funding rates, organizations types and activity types. The option preferred by the Commission would be a single reimbursement rate for all activity types and categories of organizations; another would be a uniform reimbursement rate over all activity types, so that only the differentiation by the two existing major categories of organizations would remain. (b) Reduce the number of methods for determining indirect costs. The option preferred by the Commission would be a single flat rate for indirect costs for all types of organizations and funding schemes. 2.4. Interest on pre-financing The obligation to open interest-bearing bank accounts would be removed. 2.5. More lump sum elements in the current cost-based approach Lump sums for personnel per organization, based on an ex ante estimation of personnel costs per organization for the project, would be established and agreed during grant negotiation (avoids time recording for personnel cost accounting) Lump sum system based on the scales of unit costs under the specific programme People

3(3)

2.6. Accelerating project selection The Programme Committees would not be required to check the selection decisions on individual projects (reduces time-to-grant) In certain areas, Commission decisions instead of grant agreement could be introduced. Strand 3: Moving towards result-based instead of cost-based funding (move away from cost-based system focused on input towards a system of funding based on prior definition and acceptance of output/results) Option 1: Project-specific lump sum as a contribution to project costs estimated during grant evaluation/negotiation, and paid against agreed output/results. An ex-ante estimation of adequate total eligible costs of the project would be part of the evaluation and negotiation process. Option 2: The publication of calls with pre-defined lump sums per project in a given subject area and selection of the proposals promising the highest scientific output for the specified lump sum. Here, the evaluation of proposals would include an award criterion: the resources that the consortium is willing to invest in addition to the lump sum. Option 3: A high-trust award approach consisting in distributing pre-defined lump sums per project without further control by the Commission. After the selection, the funding would be given as a lump sum without further financial or scientific checking by the Commission. This is a high-trust high-risk approach. ***