In the 5FP, this matter should be given priority. It is not always possible to fund all projects even if they are of very high quality. It is extremely important, however, that the Commission improves information to applicants and to committee delegates on the motives for not funding projects with very high quality and for funding projects of lesser quality. Open information and increased transparency would make discussions in the committees easier and help applicants to accept the outcome. The Commission should also make the names of the evaluators known.
Openness is generally better than secrecy.
Today the identity of experts are known only to certain powerful organizations. Simpler procedures will also reduce the need for feasibility awards. It is important that decisions on new FPs are based on experiences and assessments of earlier programmes. The monitoring and assessment procedures which started under the 4FP should therefore be continued.