The framework programme of the European Community for research activities, technological development and demonstration, forms an essential tool for supporting in stimulating research and in so doing, consolidating the European Research Area (ERA).
Participation in the framework programme is however regarded as complex and particularly cumbersome in terms of administration, for both candidates and beneficiaries. Added to this is the complexity of the European research system, within which numerous specific instruments and programmes coexist, as well as different types of activities, implemented according to a variety of rules.
While simplification measures have already been introduced within the framework of the 7th RDFP (2007-2013), aiming to render them more efficient and accessible, the process of simplifying the administrative and financial procedures must be pursued further in order to safeguard the attractiveness of the framework programmes vis-à-vis the best researchers, industry and, in particular, SMEs. The primary challenge consists of finding a balance between trust and control, the latter proving to be unavoidable once public funding is involved.
The purpose of the seminar organised by the Belgian Presidency on 14 July 2010 was to gather experts from a range of fields in order to discuss this topic and to answer four questions around which the afternoon debate was structured.
Here are the chief conclusions from the seminar on Simplification of 14 July:
A new balance must be found between the need for the sound management of public funds and the trust to which researchers may legitimately lay claim. It is necessary to take into consideration the notion of risk and uncertainty inherent to any research. That is why a potential shift from a cost-based approach to a results-based approach would require a good definition of what is meant by the concept of results when it comes to research. An overly narrow vision of the concept of results could effectively lead to favouring less risky projects, to the detriment of cutting-edge research and innovation. On the other hand, criteria for scientific excellence must be formulated and must remain central in the evaluation of results.
The simplification must take place with an eye towards the legibility, coherence and stability of the rules.
Based on the proposals of the European Commission, a fairly broad consensus was found among the participants at the seminar on a series of measures that could be taken in the short term, without needing to modify the existing rules. For example:
1. reduce the time it takes to evaluate, negotiate and contractualise projects, as well as the time it takes to issue payment
2. a uniform interpretation of the rules by all of the European authorities
3. improving the traceability of projects
4. reducing the number of guidance documents and clarifying them
5. Simplify, uniformise, and rationalise the information technology tools (portal for participants, reporting tools, etc.)
6. do away with the obligation to have a specific bank account per project, generating interest
7. Ensure the adaptability of the size of the consortiums in relation to the objectives of the projects.
It was also emphasised that a 2nd series of measures could also be taken under the current 7th Framework-Programme, within the context of the system based on costs:
* The question of acceptable risk of error. It is a matter of defining a new point of equilibrium between the rate of error inherent to the project and the extent of the controls. The tolerable risk of error must thus be situated between 2 and 5%, as proposed by the Commission. The rate of 3.5% appears to be a good compromise.
* Take into account the customary national accounting practices
The question of certificates of methodology and average cost of personnel was debated but no consensus was achieved.
With regard to the next framework programme, the seminar revealed the importance of a broad consultation on the precise definition of financing based on results (‘output-based funding’) and how these results should be measured. This will require a solid, consensual methodology. Another concept, science-based funding, was proposed. This concerns an approach based on the science that takes into account the efforts made by the researchers (in which case the absence of a result is considered as a result in itself).
Another measure for the next Framework-Programme could be the introduction of lump sums for financing research projects. According to the participants in the seminar, the simple shift to a system of lump sums does not appear generally applicable. It may offer an option, on a voluntary basis, as long as the lump sums match as closely as possible the real costs and are in compliance with the method of calculation used nationally. Furthermore, it will be necessary to differentiate the approach in function of the type of beneficiary (university, research centre, small or large business, etc.).