EN    EN EN 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 29.4.2009 
SEC(2009) 589 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Accompanying document to the 
  
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPE AN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN 
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMI TTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE 
REGIONS 
 
On the progress made under the 7
th European Framework Programme for Research  
   
{COM(2009) 209 final}
EN 2   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. Introduction................................................................................................................ .. 3 
1.1. Context ................................................................................................................... ...... 3 
1.2. Structure, Coverage, Indicators.................................................................................... 3 2. FP7 Implementation – General Overview.................................................................... 5 2.1. Aims and Objectives of FP7 ........................................................................................ 5 2.2. Structure and Novelties of FP7 .................................................................................... 5 2.3. General Participation Patterns...................................................................................... 9 2.4. Gender Equality and FP7 ........................................................................................... 18 2.5. Quality Assessment of Proposal Evaluation .............................................................. 21 2.6. Redress Procedure...................................................................................................... 22 2.7. Ethics Reviews........................................................................................................... 2 3 
3. FP7 Implementation – Special Focus......................................................................... 24 3.1. Reinforcing the European Dimension........................................................................ 24 3.2. Supporting Sustainable Development and Responding to Societal and 
Interdisciplinary Needs and Challenges..................................................................... 31 
3.3. A Boost for Frontier Research: Th e European Research Council ............................. 48 
3.4. Partnership with Industry ........................................................................................... 51 3.5. A new Approach to International Cooperation .......................................................... 54 3.6. Optimising Finance Opportunities: The Risk Sharing Financial Facility.................. 57 
4. Better Management through Simplification............................................................... 59 4.1. Concrete Achievements ............................................................................................. 59 4.2. Challenges: The Need to Reach an Agreement on the Balance between Trust and 
Risk in Research Funding .......................................................................................... 67 
ANNEX 1: GLOSSARY.......................................................................................................... 69 ANNEX 2: ERAB VIEWS ON THE CONTRI BUTION OF FP7 INSTRUMENTS TO THE 
ESTABLISHMENT OF A GENUINE EUROPEAN RESEARCH AREA ............................ 73 
EN 3   EN 1. INTRODUCTION  
1.1. Context 
This Commission Staff Working Document, together with a Communication from the 
Commission1, constitutes the FP7 Progress Report. Th e FP7 Progress Report provides initial 
findings on the effectiveness of the new actions initiated under the 7th Framework Programme 
for Research2 (FP7) and of the efforts made with rega rd to simplification, but also aims at 
going beyond by sketching a road map in view of  mastering the challenges ahead. It responds 
to the legal obligations included in the FP7  Decision and provides a basis for the Interim 
Evaluation of FP7 to be undertaken in 2010. 
While the Communication provide s a summary of highlights a nd challenges, this Commission 
Staff Working Document presen ts a detailed assessment of the implementation and the 
achievements of FP7 so far. 
1.2. Structure, Coverage, Indicators 
This Commission Staff Working Document is structured along the li nes of the new FP7 
Monitoring System. The FP7 Monitoring system marks a relevant change in the field of 
Framework Programme monitoring. It is base d on a core set of pe rformance indicators 
addressing a broad spectrum of implementati on issues. The FP7 Monitoring system is 
intended to cover all activities under the Framework Pr ogramme, with direct (in house) 
research actions carried out by the Joint Research Centre (JRC)3 being the only exception. 
The coverage is predominately for implementation issues and in a more limited way (reflecting data availabi lity) research outputs. 
The core of the new monitoring approach involve s the selection of key indicators on priority 
and sensitive issues. Taken together, these are expected to provide a clear snapshot of the effectiveness and efficiency Framework Program me implementation, as well as the level and 
quality of output. The list of indicators and sub-indicators applied for the FP7 monitoring 
system is presented in Table 1. Further de tails can be found in the First FP7 Monitoring 
Report (Monitoring Report 2007)
4. 
                                                 
1 [to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the 
Committee of the Regions] 
2 Two Seventh Framework Programmes under the EC and EURATOM Treaties (together called “FP7”) started in 2007. For information on the FP7 objectives  and structure as well as on its implementation up 
to now, see e.g. the Annual Reports 2007 and 2008 at 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/index.cfm?pg=reports
.  
3 Monitoring of JRC direct actions is carried out through the Annual Activity Reports 
(http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/synthesis/aar/doc/jrc_aar.pdf ) and by the JRC Board of Governors based on 
the information contained in the JRC Annual Report. 
4 http://ec.europa.eu/research/reports/2009/pdf/first_fp7_monitoring_en.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none  
EN 4   EN Table 1: List of key indicators used for the FP7 monitoring system. 
INDICATOR / ISSUE  SUB-INDICATOR  
1.1 Number of attendees at launch days 
1.2 Number of information days 1. Promotion of FP7 
1.3 Commission organised meetings of NCPs 
2.1 Success rate (overall) by priority area and funding scheme 
2.2 Success rate for different types of organisation by priority area and 
funding scheme 2. Performance of the calls 
2.3 Success rate for different types of organisation by priority area and 
funding scheme & success rates per country 
3.1 Overall quality assessment of the proposal evaluators on the FP 
proposal evaluation proce ss (evaluators survey) 
3.2 Assessment of quality by the evaluators between the FP evaluation 
process and other equivalent systems (evaluators survey) 
3.3 Time to contract/grant 
3.4 Percentage of experts reimbursed within the specified 45 days 3. Performance of the proposal 
evaluation and redress 
procedures 
3.5 Redress cases upheld (i.e. leading to  a re-evaluation) – numbers and 
percentages 
4.1 Average results of independent project review process by priority area 4. Quality of on-going research 
projects 4.2 Percentage of projects by priority area covered by reviews 
5.1 Average number of project publications  per project by priority area and 
funding scheme 
5.2 Average number of other forms of di ssemination activities per project by 
priority area and funding scheme 5. Project performance by outputs 
5.3 Average number of different types of intellectual property protection per 
project by priority area and funding scheme 
6.1 Total number of active projects by priority area 
6.2 Average financial size of projects  by priority area and funding scheme 
6.3 Participation by types of organisa tion by priority area funding scheme  6. FP activity 
6.4 Participation totals per country 
7.1 Number of male and female coordinators in proposals 
7.2 Number of male and female coordinators in projects  
7.3 Gender breakdown (by seniority) of project participants 7. Achieving gender equality 
7.4 Percentage of male and female members in Advisory Groups and 
Programme Committees 
8.1 Number of projects going through the review process/ % by area/ 
programme 
8.2 Number of ethical reviews where the result showed sufficient or 
insufficient attention had been given 
8.3 Number of projects stopped as a results of the ethical review 8. Observing sound ethical 
principles in FP research 
8.4 Number of screenings by services 
9.1 Total numbers of participations of 3rd countries by priority area and 
funding scheme  
9.2 Success rates of 3rd countries in calls by priority area and funding 
scheme  
9.3 EC contribution to 3rd countries 9. Performance of International 
Cooperation activities 
9.4 Number of international outgoing / incoming fellowships 
10.1 Do stakeholders perceive that the FP is getting simpler to use in terms 
of financial and administrative procedures? 
10.2 How do stakeholders find the ease of use of the FP compared to similar 
international research acti ons and large national schemes? 10. Simplification of the FP 
10.3 Are there any aspects of FP procedur es which are adversely affecting to 
a significant extent the quality of research carried out and the quality of 
participation in the FP? 
This Commission Staff Working Document cove rs the years 2007 and 2008. It should be kept 
in mind that at the time of the writing of the re port, information on grant agreements resulting 
from "2008 calls" can only be limited, consideri ng that negotiations related to some of these 
"2008 calls" are still ongoing. One c onsequence of the limitations in data availability is that it 
is not possible to be both informative and consis tent in the definition of "2008" throughout the 
report. Where reference is made to "2008 call s", calls with a "2008 call-ID" are included. 
Where little or no information is available for 2008, the report refers to  the latest available 
data.
EN 5   EN 2. FP7  IMPLEMENTATION – GENERAL OVERVIEW  
2.1. Aims and Objectives of FP7 
The legislative basis for FP75 states that "the overriding aim of the Seventh Framework 
Programme is to contribute to the Union beco ming the world's leading research area. This 
requires the Framework Programme to be stro ngly focused on promoting and investing in 
world-class state-of-the-art research, based primarily upon the principle of excellence in 
research [...]. The objectives [...] should be chosen with a view to building upon the 
achievements of the Sixth Framework Progra mme towards the creation of the European 
Research Area and carrying them further to wards the development of a knowledge-based 
economy and society in Europe which will meet the goals of the Lisbon strategy in 
Community policies."  
Hence, FP7 is a cornerstone in the European Union strategy to realize the knowledge 
economy as the best way for Europe to foster su stainable growth in a globalised economy. It 
plays a fundamental role in stimulating competitiveness and welfare in Europe by being a catalyst in the efforts towards the achievement of the European Research Area (ERA) and the 
attainment of the ‘fifth free dom’, i.e. the free circulatio n of researchers, knowledge and 
technology within a European ‘int ernal market’ for research.  
FP7 introduces novel elements relating to both content and implementation. It is endowed 
with a budget significantly highe r than its predecessor (41% increase at 2004 prices), which 
clearly reflects the importance of research  in the broader Europ ean political context.  
2.2. Structure and Novelties of FP7 
2.2.1.  Structure 
A new structure was designed to capture the broa d range of research activities funded by the 
European Union under FP7. The broad objective s of FP7 have been grouped into four 
categories: "Cooperation", "Ideas", "People" a nd "Capacities". For each  type of objective, 
there is a specific programme corresponding to the main areas of EU research policy. In 
addition, the Joint Research Centre's (JRC) direct  actions relating to non -nuclear research are 
grouped under a specific programme with its own budget allocation. JRC direct actions in the 
field of nuclear research and the indi rect actions supported by the EURATOM 7
th Framework 
for Programme for Nuclear Research and Training Activities comprise distinct strands of FP7. 
This structure is illustrated in the diagram below. 
                                                 
5 Decision No 1982/2006/EC of th e European Parliament and of th e Council of 18 December 2006 
concerning the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013), OJ L412, 30.12.2006 
EN 6   EN Figure 1 : Structure of FP7 – Specific Programmes and Thematic Areas. 
SPECIFIC 
PROGRAMMES Thematic areas 
Health 
Food, Agriculture, and Biotechnology 
Information and Communication Technologies 
Nanosciences, Nanotechnologies, Materi als and new Production Technologies 
Energy 
Environment (including Climate Change) 
Transport (including Aeronautics) 
Socio-economic Scienc es and Humanities 
Space 
Security COOPERATION 
General Activities 
Starting Independent Researcher Grants 
IDEAS (ERC) 
Advanced Investigator Grants 
Initial Training of Researchers 
Lifelong Learning and Career Development 
Industry - Academia Partnerships / Pathways 
The International Dimension PEOPLE 
(Marie Curie 
Actions) 
Specific Actions 
Research Infrastructures 
Research for the Benefit of SMEs 
Regions of Knowledge 
Research Potential 
Science in Society 
Coherent Development of Research Policies CAPACITIES 
Activities of International Cooperation 
Fusion Energy  EURATOM 
Nuclear Fission and Radiation Protection 
Prosperity in a Knowledge Intensive Society 
Solidarity and the Responsible Management of Resources 
Security and Freedom JRC (Direct 
Actions) 
Europe as a World Partner 
That structure can be further broken down into  the general headings given in the diagram 
below. In broad terms: 
• The "Cooperation" Programme provides projec t funding for collaborative, transnational 
research. The programme is organised through th ematic priorities such as health, energy, 
transport etc. 
• The "Ideas" Programme provides project funding  for individuals and their teams engaged 
in frontier research. This programme is managed by the European Research Council 
(ERC). 
• The "People" Programme funds actions to im prove the training, career development, and 
mobility of researchers between sectors and co untries world wide. It is managed under the 
Marie Curie programme and also includes sp ecific actions to support the implementation 
of the European Charter for Researchers a nd Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of 
Researchers and researchers' mobility under th e umbrella of "EURAXESS– Researchers in 
motion". 
EN 7   EN • The "Capacities" Programme funds actions that are designed to improve Europe's research 
infrastructure and the research capacity of SM Es. It also hosts sma ller programmes relating 
to Science in Society , Regions of Knowledge, Research Potential  and International 
Cooperation and the  Coherent Development of Research Policies . 
The budget breakdown for each of thes e elements is shown below. 
Figure 2: FP7 budget breakdown in € million (EURATOM FP budget of €2.7 billion over 5 years not included). 
Cooperation; 
32.413
Ideas; 7.510
People; 4.750
Capacities; 
4.097 JRC; 1.751
 
2.2.2.  Novelties 
FP7 builds on the achievements,  good practice and proven instru ments of earlier Framework 
Programmes and there is a good deal  of continuity both at an ope rational level and in terms of 
strategic objectives. There are, however, some novelties which represent a significant change 
compared to previous Framework Progr ammes. These are highlighted below. 
The European Research Council : The European Research Council (ERC) is the first trans-
European funding body set up to sup port investigator-driven frontie r research. It was formally 
launched in February 2007. Its main aim is to  stimulate scientific  excellence by supporting 
and encouraging the very best sc ientists, scholars and engineers to be adventurous  and to take 
risks in their research. ERC grants are awar ded through open competition to projects headed 
by starting and establishe d researchers, irrespective of thei r nationality, who are working or 
moving to work in Europe - the sole criterion for selection is scientific excellence. The aim 
here is to recognise the best ideas, and retain an d confer status and visibi lity to the best brains 
in Europe, while also attracting talent from abroad. It currently op erates two major grant 
schemes: The ERC Starting Independent Res earcher Grant scheme (for early career 
researchers) and the ERC Advanced  Investigator Grant scheme.  
Joint Technology Initiatives (JTIs) : JTIs are one of the flagsh ips of FP7. JTIs are public-
private partnerships set up at European level in areas where industry-driven research and 
development can help boost European compet itiveness in key areas. They are legally 
established bodies (‘Joint Undertak ings’), set up on the basis of Article 171 of the EC Treaty. 
Strategic Research Agendas have been devel oped by the JTIs involving collaboration between 
industry (including SMEs), th e research community, civil so ciety organisations and other 
stakeholders. JTIs arise primarily from the work  of European Technology Platforms. In line 
EN 8   EN with the FP7 Cooperation Specific Programme, C ouncil Regulations have been adopted in the 
following five areas on the ba sis of Commi ssion proposals: 
• Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) 
• Embedded Computing Systems (ARTEMIS) 
• Aeronautics and Air Tr ansport (Clean Sky) 
• Nanoelectronics Tec hnologies 2020 (ENIAC) 
• Hydrogen and Fuel Cells (FCH)  
Article 169 Initiatives:  The Article 169 instrument, althoug h introduced already under FP6, 
can also be considered as a novelty. The first application of  Article 69 is the European and 
Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP) , launched under FP6. Based on 
the experience with and the evaluation of the EDCTP the Article 169 instrument is being applied on a broader basis and has found its fo rm under FP7, with two initiatives for joint 
implementation of national programmes adopted by the European Parliament and the Council 
in 2008, one awaiting adoption and one proposal to be launched during 2009 (for details, see 
section 3.1.2). An indicator of the relevance of these new initiatives to the dynamics of the 
ERA is the variable integration capacity which each  of them is able to display. There is real 
inventiveness in combining national funds  for common objectives, which continuously 
enriches the typology of prior ity-setting and funding methods be tween groupings of dedicated 
countries. 
Redress Procedure : The quality of Commission evaluations have been consiste ntly rated very 
highly by the experts who take part  (see Section 2.8). In order to ensure that  this standard is 
maintained, and that the evaluation process is c onsistent with the principles of transparency 
and equal treatment that underpins all Commi ssion evaluations, a formal redress procedure 
has been introduced as part of FP7 (see FP7 Rules for Participation
6). The procedure also has 
the advantage of formalising, in a more coherent way, the ad hoc approaches for dealing with 
complaints that existed (at least in part) in previous programmes. 
Guarantee Fund : The Guarantee Fund is a mutual be nefit instrument that establishes 
solidarity among participants in research pr ojects. It replaces th e financial collective 
responsibility between part icipants that was a feature of FP6. It aims primarily at covering the 
financial risks incurred by the Community and the participants during the implementation of 
the projects. It can be viewed  as a kind of insurance contra ct by the participants in the 
research project to protect against financial lo sses that might be incu rred. The introduction of 
the fund also allows the abolition of ex ante financial viability checks for the majority of 
participants, thereby helping to reduce the ove rall administrative burden on the research 
community. 
Risk-sharing Finance Facility (RSFF) : It has long been acknowledged that finding private 
funding sources for R&D projects can be difficult due to a number of factors – the complex 
products and technologies involved, the market for these technologies and products is often 
                                                 
6 Regulation (EC) No 1906/2006 of  the European Pa rliament and of the Coun cil of 18 December 2006 
laying down the rules for the particip ation of undertakings, research centres and universities in actions 
under the Seventh Framework Programme and for the dissemination of research results (2007-2013), OJ L391, 30.12.2006 
EN 9   EN unproven, and the intangible assets  underpinning them can be diffi cult for the financial sector 
to manage and evaluate.  
In response to these difficulties, the Europ ean Commission and the European Investment 
Bank (EIB) have joined forces at the outset of FP7 to set up the Risk Sharing Finance Facility 
(RSFF). RSFF is an innovative scheme to impr ove access to debt financing for private 
companies or public institutions promoting activi ties in the field of research, development and 
innovation (RDI). RSFF is built on the principle of credit risk sharing between the European 
Community and the EIB and extends therefore th e ability of the Bank to provide loans or 
guarantees with a low and sub-investment grade risk profile (involving financial risks above 
those normally accepted by investors). The facility  will create an additional financing capacity 
of up to € 10 billion in support of eligible RDI activities.  
2.3. General Participation Patterns 
This chapter aims to provide a comprehensive statistical overview of FP7 participation in 
2007 and 2008. Data presented here mainly or iginate from the CORDA data warehouse. 
Further details can be found in the report FP7 Subscription and Perfor mance during the first 
year of implementation7. 
Data Collection and Reporting Methods and Data Quality 
The FP7 proposals and participants database contains inform ation on calls for proposals for which validated evaluation and 
selection data is available centrally and has already been communicated to the respective FP7 Programme Committee 
configurations. Call-specific evaluation and selection results enter the system almost  on a daily basis and are then validated 
by the responsible Commission services. Commission services ca nnot be held responsible for the quality and content of 
applicant-supplied information contained in submitted proposals. 
In FP7 the problem of the existence of multiple entries on participants is addressed by the introduction of a 'Unique 
Registration Facility' (URF) for participan ts. During the first year of implementati on of FP7 this new facility was not globall y 
implemented and, as a result, reported data was still subject to some measurement error. 
Information on the type of activity and legal status, including SME status, at th e proposal submission phase is provided by 
the applicant organisation; this informa tion is not verified by Commission servi ces before the proposal is retained for 
negotiation. This imposes limitations to the reliability of this type of data: The 2nd Progress Report on SMEs in FP7 reports 
an error rate in the SME self-declared status of 33% in signe d grant agreements in 2007. It is  also reported that 26,9% of 
Public Bodies in eligible proposals are SMEs, when it is known that only in  exceptional cases can a public body be 
considered as an SME. It is e xpected that such incons istencies will be sorted out with th e introduction of more intelligent dat a 
acquisition system, such as a revised version of the Electronic Proposal S ubmission System (EPSS). 
Summary statistics on FP7 including proposals, applicants and success rates by funding scheme, applicant activity type and 
nationality are based on (i) eligible proposal and participants da ta submitted to single stage calls for proposals and (ii) sec ond 
stage eligible proposal and participants data for FP7 ca lls for proposals involving two-stage proposal submission and 
evaluation procedures, without taking into account data from proposals submitted to th e first stage of the calls. First stage 
proposals are, in most cases, reduced or outline versions of the full proposal and they do not provide data on participants 
other than the coordinator and, therefore, no meaningful sta tistics on participant nationality or type of activity can be 
compiled. Following evaluation, each proposal is associated  to an Evaluation Summary Report (ESR) and the resulting 
evaluation outcome. Those proposals that pass to the second st age of the evaluation are submitted in full together with 
complete participants' data thus allowing for statistical analysis, and first stage data are overwr itten by second stage data. 
Following the second stage evaluation each proposal is once again associated with the corresponding ESR, evaluation 
outcome and, finally, an EC decision. 
The following limitations in the availab ility of financial data in "Ideas" and "People" proposals need to be carefully 
considered when drawing conclusions on the basis of reported statistics: Applicants' data in proposals submitted under the 
"Ideas" (ERC) and "People" (Marie Curie Actions) specific pr ogrammes generally refer to hostin g organisations rather than 
to individual applicants. In proposals submitted under "Ideas" no activity types are specified for the hosting organisations. I n 
proposals submitted under "People" data on total cost and requested EC contributi on are generally not provided; the only 
                                                 
7 European Commission (2008): FP7 Subscription and Performance during the first year of 
implementation. Brussels. ( http://ec.europa.eu/resear ch/reports/2008/pdf/fp7-1st-year-subscription-
performance.pdf ) 
EN 10   EN exception is a limited number of "People"  related calls for proposals for Coordi nation and Support Actions (CSA), which 
contain data on total cost and requested EC c ontribution both at proposal and applicant level. 
2.3.1.  Overall Participation Patterns 
2.3.1.1.  Calls, proposals and grant agreements 
This report is based on statistical data on 110 calls for proposals concluded8 at the time of 
data extraction (25/02/2009), of  which 97 were one-stage ca lls. These calls attracted 37.698 
applications for funding, about two thirds (2 4.902) of which were submitted to one-stage 
calls. 
Much of the analysis of partic ipation patterns and success rates in this report is based on the 
dataset of "included proposal s". This dataset excludes: 
• ineligible proposals, i.e. submitted proposals that  do not fulfil the formal  eligibility criteria 
set by the respective calls for proposals; 
• duplicates as well as proposals that ar e withdrawn by the project coordinators; 
• in the case of two-stage calls, al l eligible first stage proposals. 
Almost two thirds (25.419) of all submitted prop osals are included and ab out a fifth (5.520) of 
these retained for funding negotiations. This  led to 3.551 signed grant agreements, or 64,3% 
of the retained proposals, so fa r. Figures on signed  grant agreements are continuously updated 
as new grant agreements are added to the CORDA database. 
More than a third (13.835) of all proposal s were submitted under the Specific Programme 
"Cooperation". 45,3% (11.514) of all included propos als and more than a third (2.032) of all 
retained proposals were concentr ated in this programme, leading to 1380 grant agreements so 
far. 
The Specific Programme "People" (Marie Cu rie Actions) received 23,5% (8.857) of all 
applications and constituted the second most  sizeable group of included proposals (7.973 or 
31,4% of the total) and the most sizeable gr oup of retained proposal s (2.376 or 43,0% of the 
total). 1304 grant agreements have been si gned so far under this Specific Programme. 
The Specific Programme "Ideas" (European Re search Council) received almost a third 
(11.350) of all submitted proposals. Only a quarter  (2.594) of the appli cations were included 
and 467 were retained for fundi ng negotiations. Under this Sp ecific Programme 474 grant 
agreements have been signed so far.9 
                                                 
8 "Concluded" means that data on the evaluation and selection outcome are available and have already 
been communicated to the resp ective FP7 Programme Committees. 
9 In this particular case the number of signed grant agr eements exceeds that of retained proposal as some 
grant agreements are drawn di rectly from the reserve list. 
EN 11   EN Table 2: Submitted, included and retained proposals and success rates. 
Submitted Included Retained SPECIFIC PROGRAMME 
no. % no. % no. % Success 
Rates 
COOPERATION 13.835 36,7% 11.514 45,3% 2.032 36,8% 17,6% 
IDEAS 11.350 30,1% 2.594 10,2% 467 8,5% 18,0% 
PEOPLE 8.857 23,5% 7.973 31,4% 2.376 43,0% 29,8% 
CAPACITIES 3.545 9,4% 3.235 12,7% 607 11,0% 18,8% 
EURATOM 111 0,3% 103 0,4% 38 0,7% 36,9% 
Total 37.698 100,0% 25.419 100,0% 5.520 100,0% 21,7% 
Table 3: Signed grant agreements, participants and funding (in € million) by specific programme. 
SPECIFIC PROGRAMME Number of 
grants Number of 
participants Project 
cost EC financial 
contribution 
COOPERATION 1.380 14.704 6.912,7 4.847,7 
IDEAS 474 502 671,9 671,2 
PEOPLE 1.304 2.463 455,4 451,9 
CAPACITIES 365 3.435 842,1 603,7 
EURATOM 28 393 141,1 77,4 
Total 3.551 21.497 9.023,2 6.652,0 
2.3.1.2.  Applicants and budget 
Included proposals involved 159.662 applicants a nd a total estimated project cost of € 66,4 
billion with a requested Community financial contribution of € 47,7 billion. After evaluation 
and selection, the number of appl icants in retained proposals was reduced to 34.605, the total 
estimated project cost to € 14,1 billion and the requested EC contribution to € 10,1 billion – approximately 72% of the total estimated pr oject cost. Signed grant agreements involve 
21.497 participants with a Community contribution of € 6,7 billion, of which the lion's share, 
namely 73% or € 4,8 billion, goes to projects under the Specific Programme "Cooperation". 
Table 4: Applicants in included and retained proposals and success rates. 
Included Retained 
SPECIFIC PROGRAMME 
no. % no. % Success 
Rates 
COOPERATION 112.616 70,5% 22.859 66,1% 20,3% 
IDEAS 3.325 2,1% 548 1,6% 16,5% 
PEOPLE 18.959 11,9% 4.794 13,9% 25,3% 
CAPACITIES 23.637 14,8% 5.850 16,9% 24,7% 
EURATOM 1.125 0,7% 554 1,6% 49,2% 
Total 159.662 100,0% 34.605 100,0% 21,7% 
Table 5: Estimated project cost of in cluded and retained proposals and success rates. 
Included Retained 
SPECIFIC PROGRAMME 
€ M % € M % Success 
Rates 
COOPERATION 54.684,4 82,4% 11.002,2 78,0% 20,1% 
IDEAS 4.918,3 7,4% 883,8 6,3% 18,0% 
PEOPLE 21,4 0,0% 13,3 0,1% 62,4% 
CAPACITIES 6.293,0 9,5% 1.947,4 13,8% 30,9% 
EURATOM 472,9 0,7% 255,2 1,8% 54,0% 
Total 66.390,0 100,0% 14.101,9 100,0% 21,2% 
EN 12   EN Table 6: Requested EC contribution to included and retained proposals and success rates. 
Included Retained 
SPECIFIC PROGRAMME 
€ M % € M % Success 
Rates 
COOPERATION 37.776,8 79,2% 7.702,4 76,5% 20,4% 
IDEAS 4.780,0 10,0% 868,2 8,6% 18,2% 
PEOPLE 16,8 0,0% 10,0 0,1% 59,5% 
CAPACITIES 4.852,1 10,2% 1.362,8 13,5% 28,1% 
EURATOM 280,5 0,6% 131,1 1,3% 46,7% 
Total 47.706,2 100,0% 10.074,5 100,0% 21,1% 
In this report, success rates are calculated as  ratios of retained to included proposals  
following the FP7 Subscription and Performance during the first year of implementation  
report10 as well as the First FP7 Monitoring Report11. The overall success rate for proposals 
submitted under the 110 calls for proposal launched in 2007 and 2008 under FP7 is 21,7%. 
Figure 3: Success rates by Specific Programme. 
0,0%10 , 0 %20,0%30,0%40,0%50,0%60,0%70,0%
TOTAL COOPERATION IDEAS PEOPLE CAPACITIES EURATOM
Proposals Applicants E C Contribution
 
2.3.2.  Participation by funding Scheme 
Data on FP7 participation is aggregated according to the following funding schemes: 
• Collaborative Projects , including combinations of Colla borative Projects and Coordination 
and Support Actions (CP/CP-CSA) 
• Networks of Excellence (NoE) 
• Coordination and Support Actions (CSA) 
                                                 
10 European Commission (2008): FP7 Subscription and Performance during the first year of 
implementation. Brussels. ( http://ec.europa.eu/resear ch/reports/2008/pdf/fp7-1st-year-subscription-
performance.pdf ) 
11 European Commission (2009): First FP7 Monitoring Report (Monitoring 2007). Brussels. 
(http://ec.europa.eu/research/reports/2009/pdf/first_fp7_monitoring_en.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none ) 
EN 13   EN • Research for the benefit of sp ecific groups and Marie Curie Actions  (Support for training 
and career development of researchers) (BSG/MC) 
• Support for frontier research (European Resear ch Council), risk shar ing finance facilities 
and others (ERC/RSFF/OTH) 
In retained proposals Collaborative projects have by far the largest share in FP7 budget both 
in terms of total project cost s (83,2%) and requeste d EC contribution (7 9,8%) and the highest 
number of applicants (60,7%). BSG and Marie Curie Actions have the highest number of 
retained proposals (2.534 or 45,9% of the total) . Networks of Excellence, on the other hand, 
have only 21 retained proposals with 404 app licants and 1,1% of total requested EC 
contribution. In signed grant agreements the pi cture is similar: BSG/Marie Curie Actions and 
Collaborative projects have each about a third of total signed grants (1.337 and 1.196 
respectively), but in terms of numbers of  participants and Community contribution 
Collaborative projects enjoy the largest share (61,7% and 71,6% respectively). 
Figure 4: Numbers of retained proposals, applicant s and EC financial contribution by funding scheme. 
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 1 00%Retained proposalsApplicantsEC contribution
CP/CP-CSA NoE CSA BSG/M C ERC/RSFF/OTH
 
Figure 5: Numbers of grant agreements, participant s and EC financial contribution by funding schemes. 
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 1 00%Grant agreementsPar ti ci p an tsEC contribution
CP/CP-CSA NoE CSA BSG/M C ERC/RSFF/OTH
 
EN 14   EN 2.3.3.  Participation Patterns by Organisations 
2.3.3.1.  Participation by type of activity 
Data on the type of activity of FP7 participants follows a revised, compared to FP6, 
classification scheme which groups participatin g organisations in the following 5 categories: 
• Higher or secondary education (HES) 
• Private for profit (excluding education) (PRC) 
• Public body (excluding research and education) (PUB) 
• Research organisations (REC) 
• Other (OTH) 
Higher and secondary education institutes are the main beneficiaries of FP7, with 
approximately a third of applic ants (12.738 or 36,8%) and request ed EC funding (€ 3,1 billion 
or 31,3%) in retained proposals. The participati on of the private sector in FP7 involves a 
quarter of all applicants (25,3%) and requested EC funding (26%). 
Figure 6: Requested EC contribution and number of ap plicants in retained proposals by activity type. 
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 1 00%ApplicantsEC contribution
HES PRC PUB REC OTH
 
2.3.3.2.  SME participation 
The average non-adjusted share of SME partic ipants in retained FP7 proposals under the 
Specific Programmes "Cooperation" and "Capaci ties" is 27,1% in te rms of numbers of 
applicants and 22,6% in terms of requested Community contribution. The average adjusted 
participation shares in signed grant agreem ents under these two Specific Programmes are 
13,8% for participants and 10,8% for Community contribution – signific antly below the 15% 
target established in FP7. As highlighted by the 2nd Progress Report of the FP7 SME Inter-
Service Task Force12, a high percentage of all self-declar ed SMEs at the proposal submission 
                                                 
12 European Commission (2008): 2nd Progress Report on SMEs in the 7th R&D Framework Programme. 
Brussels. 
EN 15   EN stage drop out of the SME category after the ve rification of their status at the negotiation 
stage, resulting in the downward adjustment of  the figures. This should explain the significant 
discrepancy between the figures  referring to retain ed proposals and grant agreements, the 
latter being more reliable. 
2.3.4.  Participation Patterns by Country 
2.3.4.1.  Participation of EU27 Member States 
The following graphs present various aspects of  the participation patterns of EU27 Member 
States: Figure 7 presents absolute numbers of successful applicants and their requested EC funding for the 27 EU Member States; figure 8 presents the requested  EC contribution per 
successful applicant for each Member State; figu re 9 presents the succe ss rates of applicants 
for each Member State. 
Figure 7: Number of applicants and requested EC contributi on in € million by Member State in retained proposals. 
0 500 1 .000 1 .500 2.000 2.500 3.000 3.500 4.000 4.500 5.000MTLULVLTCYSKEEBGSIROHUCZIEPTPLDKELATFISEBEESNLITFRUKDE
Applicants E C contribution (€M)
 
EN 16   EN Figure 8: Requested EC contribution per applicant in  € thousand by Member State in retained proposals. 
0,050,01 00,01 50,0200,0250,0300,0350,0400,0450,0
FI DE FR DK NL SE UK AT BE IT ES EL IE LU PT PL CZ EE SI HU CY LT SK RO BG LV MTE C contribution per applicant (€ K)
 
Figure 9: Success rates of applicants by Member State. 
0,0%5,0%10 , 0 %15 , 0 %20,0%25,0%30,0%
BE NL FR SE DK UK FI DE EE IE LV CZ MT AT ES HU SK LT LU PT IT PL CY SI EL BG RO
Applicants' success rates
 
2.3.4.2.  Participation of New Member States 
New Member States participation represents 9, 3% (3.210) of all applicants in retained FP7 
proposals and 4,8% (€ 485,9 milli on) of total requested EC financial contribution. The 
success rates are 17,9% for applicants and 13,4%  for EC contribution – both considerably 
lower than the EU27 average ( 21,8% and 21,5% respectively). 
The subscription and performance of the 12 "n ew" EU Member States  (hereafter "EU12") vis-
à-vis  the "older" EU Member States (hereafter "EU15") in the "Coopera tion" and "Capacities" 
Specific Programmes during the first year of FP7 implementation presents a mixed picture 
(see also results of study based on 2007 data13). While EU12 participation in terms of 
numbers of submitted and retained proposals is lower than their share of the EU27 research 
workforce, the performance is significantly bette r when one compares their share of GERD to 
their share of EC contri butions. More specifically: 
• EU12 researchers represent 14% of the to tal EU27 population of  researchers; the 
corresponding shares of EU12 applicants durin g the first years of implementation of the 
FP7 are now 9.3% in terms of retained proposals. 
                                                 
13 European Commission (2008): Subscription and Performance in the FP7 "Cooperation" and 
"Capacities" Specific Programmes – EU12 vs. EU15. Brussels. 
EN 17   EN • The EU12 share of the EU27 2006 GERD is 2,8% while the aggregate requested EC 
contribution to EU12 applicants in  retained proposals is now 4.8%. 
These findings should however be put in the context of the current S&T socio-economic 
conditions in EU27. For example, in 2006 the R&D expenditure per researcher (GERD per 
number of researchers) in EU15 amounted to  € 121.000 – four times th at of the corresponding 
EU12 figure of € 31.000.  
Measures already taken that will help to enhance participation rates of EU12 in the 
Framework Programme include efforts put in  place by DG RTD in support of a strong NCP 
network, and the establishment of Technology Plat forms at the national level that have proven 
to be successful in involving industry in R&D activities.  
It was highlighted that EU12 is not a homogeneous group, which is why it may be more 
pertinent to refer to low- and high-performi ng Member States in FP7. The reasons for low 
performance are manifold and refer for example, to national research landscapes with specific 
problems, to the lack of a competitive research environment at national level, and to problems 
encountered by smaller countries that cannot be expected to be competitive in all thematic fields of the FP.  
2.3.4.3.  Participation of Candidate and Associated Countries 
The classification of countries according to their relation with th e EU (Member State, 
Candidate Country, Associated Country) is the same under FP7 as under FP6. However, the 
composition of these country groups has changed with the accession of Bulgaria and Romania 
in 2007, and with the associat ion of Albania, Serbia, M ontenegro, and Bosnia and 
Herzegovina in 2007 and 2008. These new membersh ips have only had a marginal effect on 
the aggregate characteristic s of their respective groups. 
Candidate and Associated Countries account fo r 8% of FP7 participation in terms of 
applicants and 8,4% of FP7 partic ipation in terms of EU financ ial contribution. They have an 
average success rate of 20,8% fo r applicants and 18,6% for EC financial contribution – lower 
than the EU Member State average (21,8% and 21,5% respectively). In this group of 
countries, Switzerland has by far the largest shar e of participation and the highest success 
rates; the participation of Norway an d Israel is also very significant. 
2.3.4.4.  Participation of Third Countries 
FP7 participants from Third Count ries represent a small part of the total number of successful 
applicants and receive an even smaller part of the total EC fi nancial contribution – just 5,7% 
and 1,7% respectively. The average success rate of Third Countries in terms of participants is 
equal to the overall average (21,7%) but considerably lowe r in terms of EC financial 
contribution (16,1%). 
EN 18   EN Figure 10: EC financial contribution and num ber of applicants by group of countries  in retained proposals for FP7 calls. 
0% 1 0% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 1 00%Applicants EC contribution
Member States Candidate & Associated Countries Third Count ries
 
Third country applicants participating in el igible proposals come from as many as 143 
countries, while those participating in retained proposals come from 97 c ountries. In this very 
diverse group, the biggest partic ipant in terms of EC financia l contribution is the Russian 
Federation followed by India, China, the USA, South Africa and Brazil, whereas in terms of 
numbers of successful a pplicants the USA is in the lead (with 348 participations), followed by 
the Russian Federation (235), India (131), China (128), Australia (85), Canada (82) and Brazil 
(81). 
2.3.4.5.  Time to Grant 
Time to grant is defined as the time elapsed between the deadline for submission of proposals 
and the signature of the grant agreement. The time to grant statistics reported here for FP7 are 
based on grant agreements signed by the date of the last data extraction (25/02/2009) and only include calls for which at least 70% of the exp ected grant agreements have been signed. These 
grant agreements correspond to approximately two thirds (62%) of the total number of 
retained proposals under FP7 at  the time of data extraction. The figures below are thus not 
final but only indicative of the current  situation and s ubject to change. 
Taking into account the limitations described above, the average time to grant overall is 318 
days (median 303 days). The thematic area with the shortest time to grant is ICT (242 days) 
followed by the ERC (289 days) a nd Marie Curie Actions (297). 
2.4. Gender Equality and FP7 
In 1999, during early FP5, the Commission adopted  a Communication in which it undertook 
the commitment to develop a coherent approach towards promoting women in research financed by the European Communities.
14 The Commission’s stated aim was to achieve at 
least a 40% representation of women in Ma rie Curie scholarships, Advisory Groups, 
Assessment Panels and Monitoring Panels of FP 5. This target was subsequently expanded to 
include all groups, panels, committees and proj ects involved in the Framework Programmes. 
The 40% target remained in place for FP6  and is currently also valid for FP7. 
                                                 
14 European Commission (1999): Communication "Women and Science: Mobilising women to enrich 
European research", COM(1999)76. Brussels. 
EN 19   EN 2.4.1.  Patterns of Gender Participation in FP7 
The CORDA database contains a considerable amount of data on individual participants in 
FP7 funded projects for which grant agreements  have already been signed, including gender 
identity. Out of an estimated total of 53.687 project participants whose gender identity has 
been recorded in the database, a quarter ( 25,8% or 13.831) is female. In this population, 
women represent 29,1% (3.227) of project coordinators and 24,9% (10.604) of project 
participants, which implies that women have a relatively stronger presence as coordinators. 
More than a fifth (21,5%) of individuals char acterised as "contact person for scientific 
aspects" in signed grant agreements are women.  Female participation makes up more than a 
third (35,4%) of participants in  signed grant agreements in the category "fellow", under the 
Specific Programme "People" (Mar ie Curie Actions). This is the category with the highest 
female participation, and it confirms the exce llent track record of Marie Curie Actions in 
achieving balanced gender dist ribution ratios. Female partic ipation makes up a fifth (20,7%) 
of participants in the categor y "principal investigator", wh ich corresponds to ERC grant 
agreements (Specific Programme "Ideas").  
2.4.2.  Gender Repartition in FP7 Advisory Groups, Programme Committees and the 
European Research Area Board (ERAB) 
Figure 11 presents the distribution of women in groups, panels and committees from FP4 to 
FP7. It should be noted that very limited data is available for FP4 and that the information 
available for FP7 is also limited at this stage. 
Figure 11: Share of women in groups, panels and committees (FP4, FP5, FP6, FP7) 
0,0%10 , 0 %20,0%30,0%40,0%50,0%60,0%
Evaluation
Pan el sExpert
DatabasesM onitoring
Pan el sAdvisory
GroupsPr og r amme
CommitteesEURAB /
ERAB19 9 8
19 9 9
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
 
For FP7, 15 Advisory Groups15 were set up in summer 2006. A si xteenth Advisory Group (for 
Security) was created in November 2007. 
                                                 
15 Health; Food agriculture and biotechnology; ICT; Na nosciences, nanotechnologies, materials and new 
production technologies; Energy + Euratom; Environment; Transport; Socio-economic sciences and 
EN 20   EN For 2007, the percentage of women in the 13 Advisory Groups managed by DG RTD was 
36,6%, while the percentage of women in all FP7 Advisory Groups was 34,1%. These 
percentages were still under the general target of 40%, but they have been clearly improved 
from FP6. Following a reduction of the numbe r of Advisory Groups and a membership 
renewal in most groups in 2008, the percenta ge of women in the 11 Advisory Groups 
managed by DG RTD is now 38,5%. These numbers are still slightly below the 40% target, 
but they have been further improved from 2007 to 2008. The percentage of women in all FP7 
Advisory Groups is 34,4%, i.e. almost unchanged compared to 2007.  
The overall percentage of fema le members of FP7 Programme Committees in the first two 
years of FP7 is 34 %16.  
Throughout its existence, the percentage of fema le members of the European Advisory Board 
EURAB, the high level advisory board establis hed for FP6, was 33%. The European Research 
Area Board ERAB, the new consultative body responsible for advising the EU on the 
realisation of the ERA, ha s 40,9 % of female members. 
At the time of the writing of this report, th e percentage of female members of the ERC 
Scientific Council is 26%. 
2.4.3.  Gender Dimension of Research in FP7 
The FP7 Decision states that "The integrati on of the gender dimension and gender equality 
will be addressed in all areas of research". The two previous sections refer to female 
participation in various bodies and in propos als submitted to FP7. The gender dimension of 
research is rather treated in the Work Progr ammes. The introduction of the Cooperation Work 
Programmes state that:  
"The pursuit of scientific knowledge and its technical application towards society 
requires the talent, perspectives and insigh t that can only be assured by increasing 
diversity in the research workforce. Theref ore, all projects are encouraged to have a 
balanced participation of women and men in  their research activities and to raise 
awareness on combating gender prejudices and stereotypes. When human beings are 
involved as users, gender differences ma y exist. These will be addressed as an 
integral part of the research  to ensure the highest leve l of scientific quality. In 
addition, specific actions to promote gender e quality in research can be financed as 
part of the proposal […]."  
In addition, the topics where ge nder may be a relevant are signa lled as such in the various 
Work Programmes. Finally, applican ts have the possibility if they so wish to address gender 
issues (both in research and in terms of female participation) in their proposals. This is then 
taken up at negotiation. Data on how gender issues  are tackled at project level are currently 
being collected.  
                                                                                                                                                         
humanities; Space; People; Research for SMEs; Regions of knowledge;  Research potential; Science in 
society; Activities of international cooperation. 
16 This figure should be understood as representing the overall trend only, given the continuous process of updating the lists and considering that during nominations, the gender of the representatives is not always mentioned. 
EN 21   EN 2.5. Quality Assessment of Proposal Evaluation 
In order to receive the independent experts' opinion on the quality of the proposal evaluation 
process and procedures, two separate anony mous on-line surveys of all experts who 
participated in the evaluation of proposals dur ing the first and second year of FP7 were 
carried out in 2007 and 2008. The purpose of the su rveys is to receive the experts' opinions on 
the quality of the evaluation pr ocess and procedures applied.  
In total 7122 experts were invited to participat e in the two surveys. The results are based on 
3963 responses, representing an overall response rate of 56%. 
The data collected give a positive picture of th e quality of the evaluation process. Across the 
calls, 96,8 % of the respondents found the quality of the evaluation overall satisfactory  to 
excellent . 
Figure 12: Responses to the question "How do you rate the quality of the evaluation overall?" on a scale from 1 (= very poor) t o 
5 (= excellent) 
14159492395490734
N/ADon`t know54321
 
Of the evaluators that had previously ev aluated research proposals for national or 
international research funding schemes, 96,7% found the EU evaluation process similar or 
better in quality. 
Figure 13: Responses to the question "If yo u have evaluated research proposals before for national or international research 
funding schemes, how do you rate the overall quality of the EU process in comparison?" on a scale from 1 (= much 
worse) to 5 (= much better) 
567110750148189415110
N/ADon`t know54321
 
In all aspects covered by the surveys, evaluators  were generally very satisfied with the way in 
which the evaluations were c onducted, with respec t to impartiality, confidentiality and 
fairness. In particular, the level of efficien cy of the evaluation task has been rated 
good/satisfactory/excellent (96,5%). 
EN 22   EN There are nevertheless a number of results pointing towards issues for attention, amongst 
them the remote evaluation, the available time, and impact evaluation cr iterion that is still 
found the most difficult one to apply.  
An overwhelming majority of the experts ( 95%) rates the overall organisation of the 
evaluation satisfactory  to excellent . Most of the evaluators (95%) found the registration 
efficient and welcoming and rated it from satisfactory  to excellent . Nevertheless a number of 
comments and recommendations have been made w ith respect to IT related aspects of the 
evaluation and other sup porting infrastructure.  
2.6. Redress Procedure 
The FP7 Rules for Participation stipulate th at the Commission shal l provide a redress 
procedure for applicants. The intention of  the legislator was to formalise the ad hoc 
approaches for dealing with complaints that existed in previous programmes. 
In line with these requirements, a redress procedure has been set up that aims to be both 
efficient and consistent with the principles of  transparency and equal treatment that underpins 
all Commission evaluations.  
Following the work of the "submission to rank ing" working group, redress guidelines were 
drafted, setting out the more ope rational aspects of the new procedure. In particular: 
• The redress committee meets in various configur ations according to the different calls for 
proposals. Directorates nominate  officials for "jury service". 
• The configurations work independently, and deliver their advice to the responsible 
directors. They may take account of possibl e comments from the director, and from the 
redress office (see below). 
• A "redress office" (RO), located in unit RTD/A 1, is responsible for re gistering and tracking 
redress requests, supporting the committee co nfigurations, and ensuring that policy is 
coherent and consistent over time, based on case histories. 
These guidelines have since been endorsed by the Legal Service, and some of the most salient 
guidelines have been incorporat ed into the evaluation rules17. 
For FP7 calls launched in 2007 and 2008 (except E RC, see below), the results of the redress 
procedure can be summarised as follows: 
• 50 requests for redress were who lly or partly upheld, but did not lead to a re-evaluation, 
because the proposal failed anyway for other reasons or because the identified problem 
was minor and not crucial to the experts' evaluation. 
• There were in total 11 cases  so far leading to a re-evaluation (0,04 % of proposals 
received). 
                                                 
17 European Commission (2008): Rules for submission of proposals, and the related evaluation, selection 
and award procedures ( Version 3, 21 August 2008 ), COM(2008)4617. Brussels. 
EN 23   EN It has to be noted however, that the redress procedure for several of the 2008 calls is not 
concluded yet. 
Problems leading to a re-evaluation were, for ex ample, related to the eligibility of proposals 
(scope, number of participants),  or to serious factual errors , or to insufficient specialist 
expertise on the part of the experts . 
In 2007, the ERC put in place redress procedures, following the model established for FP7, 
but with a separate "Ideas" c onfiguration of the redress comm ittee. The ERC now has its own 
formal procedure, including its own redres s committee and guidelines. Information on 2007 
and 2008 cases can be found in Section 3.3. 
2.7. Ethics Reviews 
The Commission has included in FP7 procedures  a thorough Ethics Review process for all 
proposals that raise ethical quest ions and are likely to receiv e Community funding. The Ethics 
Review process safeguards the protection of fundamental right s and the respect of ethical 
principles. It guarantees that no funding is allocated to research that does not comply with the 
relevant EU legislation and the ethical considerations specified in the Framework Programme. 
The Ethics Review process is described in  some detail in Annex A (Ethical Review 
Procedures) of the "Rules for submission of proposals, and the related evaluation, selection 
and award procedures" ( Version 3, 21 August 2008, COM (2008)4617) . Furthermore a new 
process of Ethics Audit has b een initiated in order to gu arantee that Community funded 
research is carried out according to  the above mentioned principles. 
The Ethics Review Sector of DG RTD is in charge of organisi ng an ethics review of those 
proposals that have successfully passed the scie ntific evaluation step and have been found to 
involve sensitive ethical issues that have not b een adequately addressed. The organisation of 
the Ethics Review involves the appointment of the members of the Ethics Review Panels and 
the procedural coordination of th e entire evaluation process.  
Research proposals involving interventions on human beings (surgical interventions  etc.), 
non-human primates, or human embryos/embryonic stem cells are automatically referred for 
ethical review at EC level.  
In 2007, Ethics Screening had been introduced in order to facilita te the selection of projects 
that required Ethics Review at the EC level. In 2008, the Ethics Screening has been 
generalised to all programmes including the ERC.  The screening is the responsibility of the 
programmes that receive the app lications. Screening is mostly conducted by ethics experts. A 
database collecting information on FP7 et hics reviews is be ing established.  
In 2007 and 2008, 539 ethical reviews were organi sed by the Ethics Review Sector. The 
project proposals that were revi ewed involved a wide variety of issues and belong to different 
research programmes. In total, 174 experts pa rticipated in the Ethics Review process. Health  
is the theme with the highes t number of ethics reviews. 
No project was stopped as a resu lt of the ethical review, but 126 proposals that were found by 
the expert panels to have insufficient safegua rds in place were requested to modify their 
project according to contractually binding requirements. 
All projects subjected to an et hical review are also fully exam ined by the relevant Programme 
Committee under its Re gulatory Framework.  
EN 24   EN 3. FP7  IMPLEMENTATION – SPECIAL FOCUS  
This chapter presents the achievements for a number of FP7 key activities in more detail. 
Considering the broad spectrum of FP7 and the w ealth of material available, only a selection 
can be presented here. 
Any reporting of the implementa tion of a major research progr amme would be incomplete 
without a closer look at the re sults obtained and the impacts achieved. The system of FP7 
monitoring indicators (see chapter 1) therefore in cludes a number of key indicators related to 
the output of projects and programmes. It should be noted however, that FP7 started only in 
2007, which implies that this report cannot provide this type of informa tion at this stage.  
3.1. Reinforcing the European Dimension 
3.1.1.  Implementing the ERA Vision 
Only by joint effort and shared responsibility across regional, national and European levels 
can research policy play its full role in underpinning European competitiveness and in attaining the objectives of the Community's Growth and Jobs strategy. The Ljubljana Process, 
launched in May 2008, provides a framework for building a new research policy partnership 
between the Member States, the Commission a nd relevant research actors. The process 
envisages a framework for imparting: political  direction to overall ERA policy development; 
ownership and commitment of Member States to specific ERA initiatives such as those 
launched in 2008; and efficient and effective means for their implementation. At the overarching level, the key reference for the Ljubljana Process and for identifying specific 
actions is the long-term ERA 2020 vision adopted by the Competitiveness Council in 
December 2008. This vision projects a fully -fledged ERA by 2020 in which attractive 
conditions for doing research and investing in R&D intensive sectors in Europe are ensured 
through optimised scientific competition, c ooperation, and coordina tion. Community-funded 
research activities have to be  increasingly selected and assesse d according to the extent to 
which they contribute to the rea lisation of this long-term vision for ERA. At the centre of the 
ERA vision is the objective to attain a "Fifth Freedom", as endorsed by the European Council 
in March 2008. The fifth freedom envisages the free circulation of researchers, knowledge 
and technology and aims at both the removal of  obstacles and the crea tion of new incentives 
to stimulate such free circulat ion of knowledge in Europe. The implication is that those 
aspects of the different Community policies that  in one way or anothe r affect research and 
knowledge have to be better exploited and bro ught in line with the overall objectives and 
principles of R&D policy in Europe. Establishi ng the "fifth freedom" and achieving a "single 
market for research" as a prio rity to respond to the change s introduced by globalisation and 
the need to transform the European Union into a truly modern and competitive society is still 
one of the major challenges. R&D policy and in particular actions undertaken to realise the 
ERA vision and the free circul ation of knowledge are also essential components of the 
structural reforms under the EU's Strategy for Growth and Jobs. 
3.1.2.  FP7 as Driver for ERA 
The scientific and technological objectives of FP7 have been e xplicitly designed to take into 
account the research needs of all Community po licies. This acknowledge s the importance of a 
robust evidence base in policy-making in all fi elds and, more broadly, the contribution of 
EN 25   EN knowledge production and dissemination to ec onomic growth and social, cultural and 
environmental well-being. 
The overriding aim of FP7 "to contribute to th e Union becoming the world's leading research 
area" applies as much to main stream funding for thematic areas and activities under the 
Specific Programmes of FP7 as it does to all policy development work under FP7 be it of a general (e.g. coherent developmen t of research policies, international co-operation) or specific 
nature (e.g. in thematic areas). For example, the Socio-economic Sciences and Humanities 
Programme contributes considerably to the conc eptualization of the ERA and related policies 
through the following re search activities: 
• Foresight activity related to the ERA priori ties, grand challenges and global issues; 
• Economics of research and innovation (knowle dge generation, entrepreneurship, impacts 
of globalisation and delocalisation); 
• Impact assessment of research policy (ex-an te evaluation of research and other EU 
policies); 
• Making available large-scale data sets and quantitative tools and models to researchers 
across Europe; 
• Support to evidence based ERA related policy-making
18. 
Evidence shows that, in the absence of Community funding, transnational cooperation 
between research actors and Member States re mains sub-optimal and develops at a lower 
scale and slower speed than would otherwis e be the case. Substantial financial support 
through FP7 thus furthers the development of ERA via its leverage effects on public and 
private R&D investment, which in turn facilita tes structural reforms across Europe towards a 
knowledge-intensive economy. In this context, the 3% R&D investment  goal, more than a 
purely quantitative target, is an  important benchmark for the Member States with significant 
mobilising effects for rethinking national R&D policies and programmes. Similarly, efforts 
under FP7 to give renewed impetus to ERA following the 2007 Green Paper19 consultation 
promise to have a far-reaching impact via the in stitution of a new partnership approach to EU 
research policy development and implementati on. More specifically, pa rtnership initiatives 
are being developed in five non-sector specific areas:  
• A European partnership for improved career aspe cts and mobility for researchers in Europe 
(including better recruitment,  training, employment, working conditions and social 
security);20 
• A Recommendation for the management of in tellectual property in knowledge-transfer 
activities and a code of  practice for universities and othe r public research  organisations;21 
                                                 
18 The ERAWATCH web-based services contribute to this objective (i.e. ERAWATCH Research 
Inventory and ERAWATCH Intelligence service) by providing evidence-based policy intelligence and 
analyses on national and regional research po licies actors, organisations and programmes. 
ERAWATCH is a joint undertaking between DG RTD and the JRC. http://cordis.europa.eu/erawatch/  
19 European Commission (2007): Green Paper on "The European Research Area:  New Perspectives", 
COM(2007)161. Brussels. 
20 European Commission (2008): Communication "Better careers and more mobility: a European 
partnership for researchers", COM(2008)317. Brussels. 
EN 26   EN • Joint programming between EU Member Stat es of their public research programmes 
through the definition and development of  common strategic research agendas;22 
• A new legal framework to assist Member St ates to establish and fund pan-European 
research infrastructures;23 
• A strategic European framework for both the Co mmunity and Member States to foster and 
facilitate coherent inte rnational science and technology cooperation activities.24 
Though the centre of gravity for action to implemen t these initiatives is in the Member States, 
the importance of all FP7 actions relevant to these initiatives increases as does the need for them to be implemented as efficiently (in te rms of management cost and flexibility) and 
effectively (in terms of impact and structur ing and leveraging effects) as possible.  
3.1.2.1.  Mobility of Researchers 
The Marie Curie Actions for training, mobility  and career development of the Framework 
Programme have since the conception of ERA been increasingly instrumental in supporting 
the Community's mobility strategy and career po licy concerning researchers. To support the 
further development and consolidation of the European Research Area (ERA), this Specific 
Programme's overall strategic objec tive is to make Europe more attractive for researchers. It 
aims to strengthen, quantitatively and qualitatively, the human potential in research and technology in Europe, by stimul ating people to take up the profession of a researcher, 
encouraging European researchers to stay in Europe, and attracting to Europe the best 
researchers from the entire world. It is im plemented through a coherent set of actions, 
particularly taking into account th e European added value in term s of their stru cturing effect 
on the European Research Area.  
The People  Specific Programme is of fundamental  significance for the development of a 
better grounded, multi- and inter-disciplinary Eu ropean research career. Through its actions it 
supports over 4,000 post-docs annually directly ; while career and employment benefits 
through the Charter and Code
25 improve the lot of countless researchers at all levels. The 
commitment for at least 25% of funding to go to  International Cooperation means that Marie 
Curie researchers travel to the best research centres globally to improve their skills, while 
European centres can invite the best global researchers into Europe to share their skills. For just 9% of the FP7 budget, with  its unique leverage, it suppor ts about one third of all FP7 
participants. With that the People  Specific Programme fully supports the objectives of the 
researchers' related ERA-initiatives as proposed by the Commission in 2008
26, which seek to 
                                                                                                                                                         
21 European Commission (2008): Commission Recommendation on the management of intellectual 
property in knowledge transfer activities and Code of  Practice for universities and other public research 
organisations, C(2008)1329. Brussels. 
22 European Commission (2008): Communication "Towards Joint Programming in research: Working 
together to tackle common challenges more  effectively", COM(2008)468. Brussels 
23 European Commission (2008): Commission Proposal for a Council Regulation on the Community legal 
framework for a European Research Infrastructure (ERI), COM(2008)467. Brussels. 
24 European Commission (2008): Communication "A strategic European Framework for International Science and Technology Cooperation", COM(2008)588. Brussels. 
25 European Commission (2005): Commission Recommendati on on the European Charter for Researchers 
and on a Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers, C(2005)576. Brussels. 
26 European Commission (2008): Communication "Better careers and more mobility: a European 
partnership for researchers", COM(2008)317. Brussels. / European Commission (2008): 
EN 27   EN make Europe decisively more attractive for re searchers and to establish a balanced "brain 
circulation" within the EU as  well as with Third Countries. 
The grants offered by the European Research  Council (ERC, Ideas Programme) are open to 
applicants of any nationality and hence an important instrument to attract excellent 
researchers to Europe. Recruitment of non-Eu ropean nationals and the repatriation of 
European nationals have been modest to date but are expected to increase significantly as the 
ERC becomes better known globally.  
Apart from the Marie Curie Actions a numbe r of policy support initiatives have been 
launched or reinforced in support of the im plementation of the European researchers' 
partnership, through for instance provision s for the EURAXESS – Researchers in motion 
activities, for data-collection on mobility an d career patterns and for the monitoring and 
evaluation of the partnership.  
In the Marie Curie Actions alone, progress to wards the fifth freedom has been significant 
through the increased accessibility to entr y Visas in some MS. Some 6,000 postgraduates 
have benefited from mobility th rough these actions in the first two years, and this number is 
set to double by the end of 2010.  
3.1.2.2.  European Universities 
Another important dimension of the further de velopment of ERA concerns the support for the 
development of excellent research institutions in Europe. As a primary source of knowledge generation and provider of  applied knowledge, European univ ersities play a key role in the 
deepening of ERA. They invest in high-quality frontier research and demonstrate substantial 
capacity to address new major societal cha llenges. These new challenges also force 
universities to modernise their ma nagement structure and research agendas as to become more 
autonomous research bodies able to define l ong term research strategies, based on greater 
openness and accountability to soci ety's needs, increased inte gration and strengthening of 
trans-disciplinary research capacities betw een universities and other public research 
institutions in key competitiv e scientific and technological ar eas, and the establishment of 
strategic links with industry. But, as pointed out by the Commission
27 and endorsed by the 
Member States28, universities have still to accomplis h their modernisation agenda, facing 
some challenges to be able to fully exploit thei r potential to contribute to the Lisbon Agenda.  
Though the Member States are at the forefront of this modernisation process of European 
universities, FP7 plays a catalyt ic role and enables overall c oherence across ERA. EU-level 
activities aim at the promotion of financial sustainability of university-based research, 
assessment of university-based research performance, and monitoring of the overall 
modernisation process. DG RTD, in addition to DG EAC initiatives, actively contributed 
under FP7 to promote the modernisation of unive rsities. DG RTD activities on universities are 
planned as a rolling agenda (2007-2013), where the first phase during the period (2007-2009) 
consisted in the launching of E xpert Groups (EG), studies and take-up activities to identify 
and implement the possible measures to stre ngthen universities. From 2010 and onwards, the 
                                                                                                                                                         
Communication "A strategic European Framework for International Science and Technology 
Cooperation", COM(2008)588. Brussels. 
27 European Commission (2006): Communication "Delivering on the Modernisation Agenda for 
Universities: Education, Research, Innovation", COM(2006)208. Brussels. 
28 European Council (2007): Council Resolution on mode rnising universities for Europe's competitiveness 
in a global economy" COMPET 426(2007). Brussels. 
EN 28   EN second phase of the rolling agenda will focus on the implementation of the action lines of the 
modernisation agenda at unive rsity level in areas such as resear ch quality, funding and 
assessment of university-based research, human resources management, partnership with the 
business sector and knowledge sharing. 
3.1.2.3.  Open Method of Coordination (OMC) 
Contributing to the development of ERA as an overarching Community policy, the Open 
Method of Coordination (OMC)  aims at increasing the coheren ce of national research policies 
in an intergovernmental way. The OMC is s upervised by the Scien tific and Technical 
Research Committee (CREST) and focuses on Me mber States learning from each other, 
exchanging experience, and identifying good pr actice, with the support of the Commission 
under the Coherent Development of Research  Capacities programme. As CREST is 
increasingly focusing the OMC on ERA related topi cs, it carries out a yearly mutual learning 
exercise based on the Lisbon National Reform Programmes of the Member States, focusing 
on progress towards the 3% R&D investment ta rget and the role of national policies in 
building ERA. The OMC-NET scheme is a specific FP7 action supporting the OMC and aims at facilitating the coordination of research policies across Eur ope, supporting mutual learning 
and evidence based policy making and coordi nation amongst more limited groups of Member 
States and regions. 
In addition to cross-cutting policy themes, it is  also important to pursue a sector-specific 
approach to developing ERA by taking account of sector-specifi c parameters and constraints 
and the variable diversity of the European res earch landscape across different sectors. Under 
FP7, an increasing number of sector-specifi c assessments of progress made towards the 
realisation of ERA permit a better identificati on and design of actions aimed at rectifying 
deficiencies. In fact, such assessments are necessary prerequisites for establishing optimum policy rationales or intervention logics for research support in specific areas and for the focus 
and structure of associated programmes. 
3.1.2.4.  The ERA-NET scheme 
The objective of the ERA-NET scheme is to enhance coordination of  national or regional 
research programmes in the Member States and Associated States. This is done either via the 
networking of research programme s, or their mutual opening. By improving the coordination 
of such research programmes across Europe, the scheme contributes to the structuring of the 
European Research Area. The scheme also  enables national systems to exchange good 
practices in programme management and take on  tasks collectively that they would not have 
been able to tackle independently. From the onset of FP7, the scheme became decentralised, 
although it is still implemented as a coordinate d call. Furthermore the ERA-NET Plus actions 
have been introduced as a new element to the ERA-NET scheme. They allow – in a limited number of cases – to provide additional EU fina ncial support to facilita te joint transnational 
calls for proposals between national and/or re gional programmes. They provide an incentive 
to the programmes pooling their re sources to reach a higher level of integration by stipulating 
agreed standards for proposal evaluation and selection. 
Under FP7 a total number of 31 ERA-NET acti ons and eight ERA-NET Plus actions have 
been selected, further 11 ERA-NETs and one ER A-NET Plus are expected  in response to the 
2009 calls. Together with the 70 ERA-NET actions  launched under FP6, these actions gather 
more than 500 national and regi onal programme owners (typical ly ministries) and programme 
managers (such as research agencies and research councils). Mo st ERA-NETs have 
management boards where these key actors of  the European Research Area are daily 
EN 29   EN interacting to develop joint acti ons and take decisions in partne rships orienting their national 
programmes and structuring the ERA. To furthe r support the development of this community 
of ERA actors and the implementation of the ERA-NET scheme, two dedicated initiatives 
have been launched by the Commission: th e ERA-NET Learning Platform and the 
NETWATCH system. The NETWATCH system  is operated thr ough a collaborative 
undertaking between DG RTD and the JRC. 
The ERA-NET Learning Platform will prov ide a framework geared towards common 
guidelines for procedures and practices acro ss all joint calls and programmes launched by 
ERA-NETs. The ultimate aim would be two-fold : to (1) reduce "transaction costs" for the 
participation in cross border programme coope ration and integration, and (2) to increase 
efficiency and stability of call implementation of multiple ERA-NETs towards a user friendly 
system, namely for the researcher participating in transnational resear ch cooperation, ensuring 
a submission and selection of highest quality proposals.  
NETWATCH will create a central information pl atform on European transnational Research 
and Technological Development (RTD) progra mme cooperation. It will provide RTD policy 
makers with a strategic intelligence tool to monitor the effectiveness of RTD policy measures 
in programme cooperation and their contributi on to reaching the goals of the Ljubljana 
Process. 
3.1.2.5.  Joint Programming 
Joint Programming is a new approach to public research, which was proposed by the 
Commission in the 2008 Communication Towards Joint Programming in Research29. It is a 
structured and strategic proce ss whereby Member States agr ee on a voluntary and à la carte 
basis common visions and Strategic Research Ag endas (SRA) in a partnership approach to 
addressing major societal challenges. 
Joint Programming is not about asking for more  money from Member States or for more 
power at EU level. It is not a new instrument  for Community research  and therefore does not 
start with Community funding. However, when and if Member States agree to commit to 
developing Strategic Research Agendas toge ther and to defining common objectives, the 
Commission, as a member of a High Level Group identifying su ch initiatives in Joint 
Programming, will participate in se lecting with Member States the best instruments to address 
the identified major so cietal challenges. 
FP7 contributed to the debate on Joint Prog ramming by driving national authorities into 
situations forcing their points of view to cons ider the benefits of duly planned and coordinated 
joint research investments. In particular, the ERA-NET scheme, by fostering cooperation 
actions which altogether launched more than  150 Joint Calls between programmes managed 
by Member States, thus mobilising more than  800 M€ of national and regional research 
funding, showed that there was much  potential for joint activities. 
The ERA-NET scheme also illustrated how it wa s possible for Member St ates to have a Joint 
Programming approach in determining topics fo r joint calls. This might even involve some 
Community funding as practised in the firs t ERA-NET Plus actions launched under FP7.  
                                                 
29 European Commission (2008): Communication "Towards Joint Progra mming in Research", 
COM(2008)468. Brussels. 
EN 30   EN FP7 also demonstrated the benefits of a nd methodology to be us ed for designing and 
implementing large cooperation at programme  level such as the SET plan and Art.169 
initiatives. 
An important element for Joint Programming are framework conditions  that should be 
satisfied prior to embarking on joint actions an d initiatives. Here too, FP7 is supporting the 
development of such framework conditions through the ERA-NET scheme, which fostered 
the development, for each Joint Call, of its own ad hoc framework conditions. The ERA 
Learn support action and the ERA-NET learni ng platform, set-up by the Commission, should 
allow the identification and communicat ion of the most appropriate ones. 
A multi-factorial analysis of the impact from the ERA-NET scheme so far and the diffusion 
of the information gathered on cooperation and collaboration between national and regional 
programmes through the ERA-NETWATCH tool  should further promote examples of 
adequate Framework Conditions.  
Finally, support and coordination actions in va rious themes will be paramount for developing 
framework conditions such as a coherent appro ach to foresight, peer review, IPR protection, 
etc. 
3.1.2.6.  Article 169 Initiatives 
Two Article 169 initiatives for joint implem entation of national programmes involving EC 
participation have been adopted  by the European Parliament and the Council in 2008, namely 
Ambient Assisted Living (AAL)  and EUROSTARS . The Ambient Assisted Living (AAL) Joint 
Programme currently involves 20 Member States and 3 Associat ed Countries with financial 
support from the European Community. It c overs market-oriente d R&D on ICT-based 
solutions for ageing well with a time to market of 2-3 years, with a particular focus on involving SMEs and developing  the significant business poten tial. EUROSTARS is a joint 
research programme for research-performing SM Es and their partners. It is expected to 
stimulate SMEs to lead international market -oriented collaborative research and innovation 
projects by easing access to support and funding. Th irty-one countries currently participate in 
the EUROSTARS Programme through the EU REKA network. Work concerning both 
initiatives currently focuses on the General Agreement and the Annual Financing Agreement 
between the Commission and the Dedicated Im plementation Structures (DIS) that receive 
delegation for managing the EC budget earmarked fo r the initiative in an indirect centralised 
way. The first calls for proposals have been already closed with an immediate high 
participation level. 
Two more Article 169 initiatives are expected to be decided la ter in the cour se of FP7. The 
Commission proposal for EMRP , in the field of metrology has been adopted in 
December 2008; inter-institutional discussions ar e ongoing with a view to a Decision of the 
European Parliament and the Council in th e first half of 2009. The development of the 
BONUS initiative, which focuses on research in th e Baltic Sea area, is continuing, being of 
importance to support the impl ementation of the marine st rategy direc tive being the 
environmental pillar of the European Maritime Policy.  
3.1.2.7.  Research Infrastructures 
One essential area of science that  has a global dimension and lends  itself particularly well to 
international cooperation is the development and use of research infrastructures. In Europe, 
the European Strategy Forum on Research Infras tructures (ESFRI) has taken the first steps in 
EN 31   EN this direction by establishing a Roadmap for ne w Research Infrastructures of pan-European 
interest, which have the potential to beco me global. FP7 activit ies (through different 
Preparatory Phase projects) help to develo p a more structured approach to support 
international level discussions and to jointly de velop global research in frastructure projects 
that require international cooperation in order to be realised (e.g. LIFEWATCH on 
biodiversity, the Integrated Carbon Observation System and the Square Kilometre Global 
Radio Astronomy Array). Another example is the GÉANT infrastructure, encompassing now 
36 countries. GÉANT's total communication capability is now well beyond 1000 Gb/s, and it 
connects over 30 million researchers in 34 European  countries and links to a number of other 
world regions. 
The Commission launched a specific initiative  in 2008 for a regulation at European level 
favouring the setting-up of new pan-Eu ropean research infrastructures30. Considering that the 
research infrastructures needed in Europe to stay at the leading e dge of knowledge creation 
are becoming increasingly complex and expens ive, often placing thos e beyond the reach of a 
single nation, joint actions between Member States are necessary. Until now there was a clear absence of an adequate legal framework, which has been a major difficulty for Member States 
to join forces. The proposed regulation helps the new entities to be created to have a legal 
personality recognised in all Member States, prov ides flexibility for Member States to decide 
the main rules in the statutes, and proposes si mplification-related provi sions such as the one 
on exemption of infrastructures from VAT and excise duties.  
To address the need to increase investment in research, in particular research infrastructures, 
and to combine in the most efficient way all available public and private resources (Member 
States, industry, European Inve stment Bank (EIB), Structural Funds, FP7, CIP etc.) and also 
to enable, inter alia, the timely construction of needed new research infrastructures, the Commission prepared during 2008 A practical guide to EU funding opportunities for 
research, development and innovation: Synergie s in funding between the 7th Framework 
Programme for Research, Competitiveness & Innovation programme and Structural Funds
31. 
3.2. Supporting Sustainable Development a nd Responding to Societal and 
Interdisciplinary Needs and Challenges 
As the EU faces new major societal challenges such as energy, climate change, sustainability, 
health, and ageing population, it is crucial th at research funding and policy development 
under FP7 responds fully to society's needs. R&D ha s to be more explicitly and systematically 
driven by these "grand challenges" for which a de termined, European-scale effort is essential 
to bring about decisive progress.  
The upcoming EU budget review provides an opportunity to stress the added value of 
Community support in the field of R&D and its crucial importa nce for attaining the EU's 
objectives on growth and jobs. Th e crucial role of R&D also e xplains the need for continued 
improvement of the FP's delivery mode in terms of quality and effectiveness of research outcomes, implementation, and management. 
                                                
 
30 European Commission (2008): Commission Proposal for a Council Regulation on the Community legal 
framework for a European Research Infrastructure (ERI), COM(2008)467. Brussels. 
31 European Commission (2008): Competitive European Regions through Research and Innovation. 
Practical Guide to EU funding Opportunitie s for Research and Innovation. Brussels. 
EN 32   EN In order to illustrate the various  activities as well as the type s of achievements and some first 
impacts generated through FP7, a number of ke y topics are briefly presented here. This 
selection is meant to be illustrative only, it is not intended to be representative of the large number of FP7 activities, content-wise an d policy-wise, which have been launched 
successfully and have already contributed  to achieving the objectives of FP7. 
3.2.1.  Facing the Challenges of the Knowledge Triangle 
More coherence is needed between different pol icy tools related to the knowledge triangle of 
research, innovation and education. This implie s the need for an optimal coordination and 
more consistency both between national and Community funding and between the different 
Community funding instrument s and their objectives. 
With a budget of € 50 billion for the period 2007- 13, FP7 is one of the three main sources of 
EU funding for research and innovation; the othe rs being the Structural  Funds (SF) and the 
Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Progr amme (CIP). For the period 2007-13, the 
Structural Fund have allocated an amount of € 86 billion in support of innovation in a broad 
sense – including RTDI
32, entrepreneurship, i nnovative ICT and support for related human 
resource development – while the allocation just  for core RTDI amounts to € 50 billion; equal 
to FP7. For the same period the funding av ailable under the CIP is € 3.6 billion.  
When operating separately, each of these funds makes an important contribution to economic 
development and the improvement of EU compe titiveness. However, significant opportunities 
also exist to exploit the potential for syne rgies through their co mplementary use. The 
importance of such synergies has been incr easingly recognised. As a result, the Commission 
adopted, in August 2007, a Communication on "Competitive European Regions through Research and Innovation"
33. The Communication took stock of the current situation in the 
domain of EU funding for research and innova tion and called on Member States and regions 
to make more effective use of EU research, innovation and cohesion pol icies and instruments. 
The Communication also committed the Commis sion to produce a guide to accessing funding 
for research and innovation und er the three instruments. Th is is now available as the 
"Practical Guide to EU funding for research and innovation"34 which provides a concise 
description of the three funding sources, explains how they can in practice be combined and 
provides policy makers with advice on setti ng up mechanisms at the national and regional 
levels to foster co-ordinated acce ss to the different instruments.  
The Regions of Knowledge and Research Potential specific regional actions under FP7 can 
make a contribution to the promotion of s ynergies. Actions under Regions of Knowledge 
promote the development of regional research dr iven clusters involving the triple helix of 
businesses, research entities and the public authorit ies. Requesting from the participating 
regions the design of a Joint Ac tion Plan in R&D in order to  support their regional economic 
growth, this programme is cata lytic tool in order to use efficiently available sources of 
funding at EU, national and regi onal levels. Actions under Res earch Potential help develop 
the capacity of resear ch entities in the C onvergence regions and complement the support 
available under cohesion policy.  
                                                 
32 RTDI - Research, Technologi cal Development and Innovation 
33 European Commission (2007): Communication "Competitive European Regions through Research and 
Innovation", COM(2007)474. Brussels. 
34 European Commission (2008): Competitive European Regions through Research and Innovation. 
Practical Guide to EU funding Opportunitie s for Research and Innovation. Brussels. 
EN 33   EN There is an estimated number of well over 20 million SMEs in Europe. They are employing 
around 75 million people (in some key industries acc ounting for as much as 80% of all jobs), 
thus being responsible for the creation of one in every two j obs. In some regions, SMEs are 
practically the only priv ate-sector employer. This underlines  their social and their economic 
importance, recognised in the FP7. However, less than 10% of all European SME's are 
leading technology users and less than 3% are technology pi oneers, and SME's are often 
minority partners in the relatively larg e FP7 projects. As indicated in the 2nd Progress Report 
on SMEs in FP735, SMEs are attracted to participate in FP7 in higher numbers than in any of 
the previous Framework Programmes. They also  receive a higher level of funding for their 
participation compared to FP6. Nevertheless,  reaching SME's with no R&D capacity remains 
a priority for a wide based realisation of the competitiveness targets and represents a 
particular challenge. Further incentive for SME participation should therefore focus on 
creating the right boundary conditions for SMEs and their research partners to make SME 
participation in FP7 more attractive. It may be necessary to create  a single SME dedicated 
programme encompassing all types of SME with  a major focus on innovative and research 
capacity building. 
The new partnership with Memb er States on the Researchers Careers promises real and 
lasting benefits for the Research profe ssion, and the mobility of knowledge throughout 
Europe and the world. A major challenge is  to create a high quality workforce of a 
sufficiently strategic size that can undertake mu lti-disciplinary research at the head of the 
value added chain. The Marie Curie Actions train researchers in wider skills that help prepare 
the researcher for a mobile, in ter-sector career while honing their research skills by either 
going to the best centres globally, or bringing the best researchers into Europe to share their 
knowhow. 
The European Research Council (ERC) offers the opportunity to young researchers to make 
the transition to an independent research care er. Established researcher s have the opportunity 
to benefit not only from the prestige attached to being awarded an ERC grant but also from 
the prestige in achieving  the ERC's quality threshold even if they fail to secure funding. 
FP7 activities are complemented by the Eur opean Institute of I nnovation and Technology 
(EIT) that has been launched last year. The mission of the EIT is to explore excellence in 
entrepreneurship education, research and busin ess for world class innovation. The EIT aims at 
boosting innovation in Europe by pooling together  excellent resources,  allowing innovative 
businesses, research organisations and higher edu cation institutions to interact with each other 
in new ways and to exploit fully their creativ e potential for finding ne w solutions to major 
societal challenges. This is done by the cr eation of highly integrat ed, excellence-driven 
partnerships, known as Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs). KI Cs bring together 
the three elements of the knowledge triangle and are composed of businesses, entrepreneurs, 
universities, research institutes and technol ogy centres that will produce new innovation 
models and inspire others to emulate them. The EIT is still in the proc ess of being set up. The 
first KICs are expected to become operational in 2010 and make explicit the role of research 
and innovation to address new challenges. 
                                                 
35 European Commission (2008): 2nd Progress Report on SMEs in the 7th R&D Framework Programme. 
Brussels. 
EN 34   EN 3.2.2.  FP7 Supporting Sustainable Development 
Besides aiming to strengthen th e scientific and technological bases of Community industry, 
FP7 seeks as well to suppor t sustainable development.  It is explicitly recognised that the 
overarching aim of the Cooperation Specifi c Programme, by far the largest Specific 
Programme of FP7, is to contribut e to sustainable development. 
The renewed EU Sustainable Development Strategy (SDS)36 recognises the need to 
strengthen research and technological developmen t in helping to transl ate the key challenges 
and objectives of the strategy into concrete action, and to promote a forward-looking and 
integrated approach to sustainability. 
It is only through research that Europe will be ab le to cope simultaneously with sustainability 
and competitiveness. Also, the ERA vision 2020 cal ls for the European Research Area to be 
"firmly rooted in society and responsive to it s needs and ambitions in pursuit of sustainable 
development". The challenge ahead is to build on the strong sustainability potential of FP7 
and to engage Member States in a collective exercise in order to transform this vision into a concrete reality. This should en sure that research throughout the European Union, and in its 
international cooperation, is fully harnessed to  providing sustainable so lutions, such as clean 
production, sustainable agriculture  and fisheries, low-carbon ener gy and transport, sustainable 
cities, integrated coastal zone management, ma ritime spatial planning, etc. and to increasing 
our knowledge of the challenges in the field of  environment, including climate change, and 
our ability to cope with them. 
FP7 is tailored to allow EU research to live up to the pervasive and multifaceted expectations 
for R&D in the SDS, and hence well equi pped to promote sustainable development. 
FP7 is fully contributing to the 7 key challe nges of the renewed Sustainable Development 
Strategy. Across the ten Themes of the Coopera tion Specific Programme, 59% percent of the 
topics in the three first waves of work programmes (2007, 2008 and 2009)  aim to contribute 
to one or more sustainability objectives. Fo r the first two years (2007 and 2008), this has 
resulted in a share of 44% of the total budget be ing allocated to SD-related research. The main 
contributors are the themes Environment, including climate change , Energy  and Food, 
Agriculture and Biotechnology . But the other Themes are also contributing by funding 
significant levels of SD-relevant research. 
Wherever necessary, joint calls are organised to  allow joining efforts from several Themes. 
This has been the case, for example, for Biorefineries , for Water Technologies , for Climate 
Change and Conflicts , for ICT, to name only a few examples (see also below). The JTIs 
launched represent also key elements of the renewed SDS (see section 3.4). 
Several examples, from a number of FP7 Them es or cross-cutting Activities and to be 
understood as snapshots of a much broa der spectrum, are presented below. 
3.2.2.1.  Environment 
Environmental issues represen t one of the major challenges  of today's world. All human 
activities have an impact on the environment and consequently most societal issues are directly or indirectly linked to the environment. With the mainstreaming of environmental 
issues in FP7, this is valid for all FP activit ies. In the past two years, environmental 
                                                
 
36 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/ site/en/com/2005/com2005_0658en01.pdf   
EN 35   EN consequences of human action have become incr easingly important on the political agenda at 
Member States, European Union and World level.  Furthermore, the financial crisis puts more 
pressure to find new systemic solutions to tu rn the challenges into  economic opportunities. 
Economically and socially feasible measures th at do not neglect their environmental impacts 
need to be identified and put in motion. Res earch is crucial to understand eco-systems 
behaviours, identify impacts of human action and inaction, and find and implement solutions.  
Activities under the FP7 Environment Theme have  strongly contributed to addressing these 
challenges: 
• Strong contribution to EU policies, e.g. to  the. Climate Action and Renewable Energy 
Package, the Floods Directive, the Drought s and Water Scarcity  Communication, the 
Communication and Action Pl an on Disaster Prevention and Early Warning, the 
Environmental and Health Action Plan, the Environmental Technologies Action Plan, the 
Sustainable Consumption and Production and Su stainable Industrial Policy Action Plan.  
• The 2008 Commission Communicati on on A European Strategy for Marine and Maritime 
Research highlights the importance of inte gration between established marine and 
maritime research disciplines in order to reinforce excellence in science and to boost our knowledge of the oceans and our ability to mana ge sea-related activities in a sustainable 
way. This new strategy, which is a key pill ar within the European Maritime Policy, was 
welcomed by the Competitiveness Council of  2 Dec 2008 where it was recognised as a 
significant progress towards the development of the ERA. Already in the 2009 Work 
Programme, a collection of 11 marine and maritime topics have been open under the 
common umbrella of "Sustainable use of seas  and oceans", thus representing a first step 
towards a more integrated approach to ma rine and maritime research under FP7. The 
Commission announced the launching in 2009-2010 of cross-thematic joint calls in the 
field of marine and maritime sciences across several themes of FP7, addressing major research topics requiring a cross-thematic a pproach such as climate change and oceans, 
impact of human activities on coastal and ma rine ecosystems, mari ne biodiversity and 
biotechnology, continental margin s and deep sea, exploitation of marine renewable energy 
resources. Guiding principles  are the cross-sectoral appr oach, multi-disciplinarity and 
integration between disciplines, as well as the emphasis on ambitious projects. 
• Strong support to intern ational initiatives , i.e. the Intern ational Panel on Climate Change, 
the Global Earth Observation System of Sy stems (GEOSS), the Biological Diversity 
convention. 
• Promotion of environmental consideration in the pluridisciplinary and cross-thematic 
research through joint calls with other FP7  Cooperation Themes, i.e. biorefineries. 
• Enhanced stakeholder participation and there by possible uptake of i nnovative solutions in 
society, e.g. through the implementation of the new Research for the benefit of specific 
groups – CSO (Civil Society Organisations ) funding scheme, for which the Environment 
Theme is pioneer. 
Among the many achievements and success stories are: 
• Multi-scale analysis of biol ogical diversity and development of economic activities from 
ecosystem services. 
EN 36   EN • Promotion of European excellence in key doma ins to foster the implementation of Global 
Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS). 
• Support to the development of environmental t echnologies in the areas of water treatment 
and water and soil rehabilitati on and protection, with clea r economic, environmental and 
social potentials impacts. 
• Enhanced links with the UN International Panel on Climate Change to foster EU 
contribution to future Assessment Repor ts, including strong advocacy for timely 
publication of results of FP7 projects. 
• Launch of the Sustainable Development Netw ork in the Commission to maintain the 
attention in the Framework Programme on the objectives of this strategy. 
• Launch of new ERANETs in the field of Environmental resear ch, including the 
Environment and Health area. 
3.2.2.2.  Energy 
The availability of clean, dependable and affordable energy is one of the major challenges in 
Europe and at the core of public interest . The Strategic Energy Technology (SET) Plan37 is an 
integral part of the European energy policy. In  line with the objectives of the energy package, 
the SET-Plan sets out a series of 'key technol ogy challenges' for the next 10 years, both to 
meet short-term targets (2020 time horizon) and to prepare the ground for meeting the even 
tougher longer-term challe nges (2050 time horizon). 
The SET plan aims at accelerating the developm ent and wide-scale application of low-carbon 
energy technologies for the achie vement of the EU's set ener gy and climate goals for 2020, 
and at positioning the European industry in a leading position worldw ide while contributing 
to the transition to a low-carbon economy by 2050. 
This will be done through an integrated ap proach from the birth of the idea to its 
commercialisation, seeking to address simultane ously the three pillars of the Community 
energy policy: security of supply, su stainability and competitiveness. 
The implementation of the SET Plan will evolve around four dimensions:  
• Strategic planning: Steering Group of Member States (to drive the process) , European 
Energy Technology Information System (SETIS) (mapping of energy rese arch activities in 
Europe) , 2009 Technology Summit (to bring together and engage  all stakeholders in the 
entire innovation system, from industry to customers) . 
• Effective implementation: Europ ean Industrial Initiatives (EEI) (Industry led 
programmes) , European Energy Research Alliance (EERA) (Research led programmes) , 
Networks of the future (to optimise and harmonise the development of low carbon 
integrated energy systems across the EU and its nei ghbouring countries) . 
• International cooperation: Cooperation with Thir d Countries will be an integrated part of 
the SET Plan activities to be addressed in the overall Strategic European Framework for 
                                                 
37 European Commission (2007): Communication "A European strategic energy technology plan (SET-
plan)", COM(2007)723. Brussels. 
EN 37   EN International S&T Cooperation (mapping of co operation activities between EU and Third 
Countries, analysis of scope , coherence and complementar ity of various activities, 
identification of common priorities and propos als for implementation, impact assessment). 
• Identification of resources via a Communica tion on financing low carbon technologies in 
summer 2009: The Communication will address resource needs and sources, examining all 
potential avenues to leverage private invest ment, including privat e equity and venture 
capital, enhance coordination between f unding sources and raise additional funds. 
The emphasis will be notably put on the estab lishment of the European Energy Research 
Alliance which should define and implement futu re joint programmes for basic research and 
also on the implementation of six new European  Industrial Initiatives which should define 
industry-led programmes (wind, solar, CCS (car bon capture and storage), grids, bio energy 
and fission). 
The European Industrial Initiatives together with  the Alliance are the most visible, concrete 
part of the SET-Plan. The Initiatives and the Al liance are the places to work with the Industry 
and the Research Community to accelerate the development of strategic low carbon 
technologies. Since the adoption of the SET Plan in November 2007 important progresses 
have been achieved: 
• The European Industrial Initiatives are pr ogressing at a different pace due to the 
organisation, the structure of the sectors and the degree of ambition and commitment of the 
industries. Wind, solar, and CCS are today the most advanced. The grid initiative is the 
less advanced. Progress across the 6 initiatives is variable but three initiatives at least should be launched by end 2009 (from CCS, solar and wind). 
• The Alliance is running very well trough inter actions between Institutes and discussion on 
setting up the Alliance at working and decisi on level. The EERA plans to launch 3 Joint 
Programmes in 2009 and 3 more in 2010 and will organise 3-8 workshops to prepare and define the JPs. These programmes will pione er the joint programming approach through 
which the EERA members will join forces. The accent should be put now on the governance structure and the financing issue.  
• The FP7 Energy Work Programme 2009 was the firs t one to take into account the priorities 
and technologies identified in the SET-Plan. In particular a large effort wa s dedicated to 
second generation bio fuels.  
The current legal and financial instrument s should permit to realise the objectives: 
• If the SET-Plan has an ambition that is be yond the scope of FP7-Energy in the short term, 
the FP7 Energy Work Programme is the main instrument we have at our disposal in the 
short term to support its implementation of the SET-Plan.  
• Possible additional financing sources at community level could be the revenues from 300 
million allowances of the Emission Trading Scheme and the recovery plan which could be 
used to finance initially the CCS, wind init iatives and other rene wable initiatives.  
• Regarding the possible structure of the EIIs , many options are possible but a light and 
flexible form is favoured over a JTI like one to  enable faster progress. There is often the 
misperception that the Commission envisages a Joint Technology Initiative, under Art 171, 
as the sole implementation mechanis m for each of these initiatives.  
EN 38   EN • For the Alliance, the implementation of Joint programmes could take a number of forms, 
from use of the ERA-net+ to instrument to a legislative proposal on the basis of article 168 
(Supplementary programmes) of the EC treaty. 
Future Work Programmes need to reinforce the focus on the key challenges of the SET-Plan, 
in particular anticipating the objectives of the embryonic Europ ean Industrial Initiatives and 
the potential joint programmes of the Europe an Energy Research Alliance. The 2010 Work 
Programme will foresee a support action to the EERA infrastructure. A strong support to the 
SET plan has to be conciliated with the wide r priorities of the Specific Programme, striking 
an appropriate balance and ensuring the effec tive implementation of the activities decided by 
Council and Parliament. This question of keepi ng the right balance is a major issue when 
implementing the yearly Work Programmes.  
It is more and more obvious that Energy rese arch depends on the successful cooperation of 
different traditional fields of Research in or der to produce breakthrough innovative results. In 
the domain of hydrogen and fuel cells, for example,  this has led to the setting up of the Joint 
Technology Initiative on fuel cells and hydroge n, co-funded from four themes (Energy, 
Transport, NMP and Environmen t) and from industry, leading to an initiative having the 
necessary focus and critical mass to create th e conditions for the growth of a strong and 
competitive European industry (see also chapter 3.4). 
Other approaches for cross cutting research ha ve been taken in recent calls (2008 and 2009) in 
other areas, with joint calls gathering several directorates or DGs around topics such as 
materials for energy applications, biorefineries or ICT for smart grids. The excellent answer 
to the joint call with materials has shown the inte rest of the research community for this type 
of calls. The current interest in the joint call on bioref ineries further supports this approach of 
large, integrative projects. 
Biorefineries - facili ties that combine biomass convers ion processes and equipment to 
generate fuels, power and new materials from bi omass - are at the core of several initiatives 
serving Competitiveness, Energy and Environment policies, notably the Climate Action and Renewable Energy package. The Biorefinery Joint Call
38, a widely integrated approach 
involving four research themes under FP7 can be considered as a pilot experiment for future 
multidisciplinary approaches and represents a true achievement. 
The complexity of the topics tackled and the n ecessity to obtain the n ecessary critical mass 
and visibility required the different scien tific communities and disciplines concerned 
(environment, materials, biotechnology, energy ) to work together exploiting all possible 
synergies. The response from the research a nd industrial community was very good with sixty 
three proposals.  
The assessment of the true su stainability of the future solution proposed, building on the life 
cycle assessment work done by the Environment Directorate in DG RTD and the Institute for 
Environment and Sustainability of the JRC in Ispr a, represents one of the special features of 
this call. In particular the problem related to the identification of the sustainability indicators 
for second generation biofuels and all biomass-related produc ts will represent a central 
research element in all funded projects and will put the EU at  the forefront in leading the 
development and production of bio-based pr oducts (materials and energy) in an 
environmentally, economic, and socially acceptable way. 
                                                 
38 OJ 2008/C 226/06 
EN 39   EN It is therefore expected that the projects whic h will emerge will be coherent and integrate all 
the aspects of Biorefineries including the de monstration dimension, leading to concrete 
advances in that domain. 
3.2.2.3.  Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, Biotechnology 
The primary aim of the Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, and Biotechnology  Theme is to build 
a ‘European Knowledge Based Bio-Economy’ (KKB E). The most importan t instruments used 
are ERA-NETs and European Technology Plat forms (ETPs): Two ERA-Nets have been 
established so far, and two others are under ne gotiation, while there are 8 officially recognised 
ETPs and one emerging initiative. A specific proj ect encourages ETPs to collaborate, to 
explore possible synergies and to further impr ove relations with natio nal research funding 
organisations and ERA-NETs. 
The development of a bio-economy ERA is  further enhanced through a reinforced 
cooperation between Member States under the Knowledge Based Bio-economy Network 
(KBBE-NET),  and in the Standing Committee on Agricultural Research (SCAR): SCAR has 
set up 10 ERA-NET-like collaborative working gr oups (CWGs), some of which have led to 
new ERA-NETs. This is complemented by KBBE-NET activities on biorefineries and 
marine-biotechnology. A CWG on Synthetic Biology is also being established under the 
KBBE-NET. An Expert group on Food and Health  will provide advice for long-term strategic 
approaches to address societal challenges, to  increase cross-border research programmes, to 
achieve a critical mass in rese arch on food and health and to  identify gaps in research, 
technological tools and infrastructures.  
The Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, and Biotechnology  Theme supports a wide range of 
Community policies and strategies, including the Energy SET plan and the Integrated 
Maritime Policy. This also incl udes support to policy reform, fo r example projects in areas 
such as trade analysis to prepare for WTO a nd bilateral trade negotiations, market analysis 
and rural development in the context of the CAP reform as well as projects regarding 
sustainable food chains and novel approaches to  governance in the context of the CFP reform. 
A number of projects ar e also addressing the future of European farming, the challenges 
linked to climate change and the advantages of  new technologies in robotics and information 
technologies. 
International cooperation in this theme has succe ssfully reached out to a wide range of Third 
Countries world-wide, via the general opening of  all topics to Third Countries, but also 
through dedicated international initiatives, co ordinated calls with Third Countries (with 
Russia and with India), and the twinning  with projects funded by programmes in Third 
Countries (with Canada). The large response by Third Countries in proposals selected for 
funding (12%) as well as the high success rate of  applicants from Third Countries (20%) are 
very promising. 
3.2.2.4.  Health 
The FP7 Health Theme has strongly contri buted to EU policies in the field of Health & Public 
Health , e.g. through the chapter on Optimizing the delivery of health care to European 
citizens , which is fully in line with the principles of the new EU Health Strategy Together for 
EN 40   EN Health: A Strategic Approach for the EU 2008-201339. Building on curr ent work, this 
Strategy aims to provide an overa rching strategic framework spanni ng core issues in health as 
well as health in all policies and global health issues.  
Further achievements and highlights are: 
• The Council Regulation establishing the Innovative Medicines Init iative Undertaking (IMI)  
was published in the Official Journal in February 2008. Vi a this Initia tive, and in 
partnership with the European Federation of  Pharmaceutical Industr ies and Associations 
(EFPIA), the Community will significantly improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the drug development process in Europe with the long-term aim that the pharmaceutical sector produces more effective and safer innovative medicines.  
• The European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP) , the first 
application of Art. 169, whereby the Community  can participate in research programmes 
undertaken by several Member States, concen trates efforts on fighting global health 
threats: HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis . In October 2008 the Commission adopted the 
Communication on the Progre ss Report on the EDCTP Pr ogramme (Sept. 2003 - May 
2008). The feasibility of renewing this Pr ogramme beyond 2010 is currently explored. 
• Fighting Alzheimer's dise ase and other dementias  is one of the areas currently being 
considered for a pilot Joint Programming initiative. The December 2008 Competitiveness 
Council confirmed the necessity of launchi ng a pilot joint programming initiative on 
combating neurodegenerative diseases. 
• Cooperation with the US National Institutes of Health (NIH):  The 3
rd FP7 call for 
proposals in the Health Theme included a st atement welcoming the participation of 
partners based in the USA, explicitly waivi ng any restrictive clause, in response to the 
announced NIH openness towards European resear chers. A joint lett er by the then-NIH 
Director Elias Zerhouni and Commissioner Potocnik adver tised this agreement in Science  
on 14 Nov. 2008.  
• International programmes in Genomics and Systems Biology : A striking feature of the field 
of genomics & systems biology is  a trend towards gl obal collaboration in  the planning and 
execution of large-scale program mes that lie beyond the capab ility of any single player. 
Building on large FP6 EU projects in genomic s that coordinated th eir research agendas 
enabled the EU to become a leading partner in large world-wide efforts such as the International Mouse Mut ant Collaborative Project  co-funded by the EC, NIH and Genome 
Canada, one of the largest lif e sciences research endeavour after the human genome 
project, the International Cancer Genomics Consortium , launched in May 2008 or the 
International Human Mi crobiome Consortium  (IHMBC), launched Oct. 2008. These 
efforts have definitely placed the Commission as a world partner on the map. 
3.2.2.5.  Partnership with Society 
The structure of the Socio-economic Sciences  and Humanities (SSH) Programme corresponds 
to the most important EU challenges: Lis bon strategy and knowle dge economy, sustainable 
                                                
 
39 European Commission (2007): White Paper "Together for Health: A Strategic Approach for the EU 
2008-2013", COM(2007)630. Brussels.  http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_overview/Documents/strategy_wp_en.pdf
 
EN 41   EN development and cohesion, major societal tre nds (like demography, migration, family, 
education, working conditions), globalisation and Europe in the World, citizenship and 
cultural dimension. The knowledge generated fo r each of these challenges from the SSH 
research activity is directly made available to  the Directorates-General responsible for the 
policies. Vice versa, the policy needs are take n into account in the research agenda. As a 
result of the development of an activity on evidence based policy-making, a series of 
interactions with policy DGs ha ve been put in place, and important contributions to support 
policy are designed as the result, such as: 
• Collaboration with BEPA on foresight (World in 2025) and support to the preparation of 
the "Lisbon+" (beyond 2010) strategy and budgeta ry reform (financial perspectives) 
• Providing data bases (e.g. EU KLEMS) and results from analysis on economic issues 
(Lisbon and competitiveness) and social i ssues as background information for policy 
making; 
• Support to the Renewed Social Agenda, throug h research actions related to demography, 
migration, life conditions, inequalities; 
• Exploitation of research results  to address the financial an d economic crisis as well as 
global economic governance and Sustainable Development issues: post-carbon society, 
urban cohesion; 
• Launching projects on the changing interac tions and interdependencies between world 
regions and their implications for Europe, an d the related issue of addressing emerging 
threats and risks in a world context and th eir connection to huma n rights, freedoms and 
well-being and contributing to the formulation of External Relations policies ranging from 
trade to development cooperation, human right s and democratisation policies, and CFSP 
(e.g. research on the impact on climate change on  water and its implications for security).  
• Launching research on how citizens and EU institutions and policies relate to each other 
and the challenges for EU governance of foster ing 'unity and diversity', how to achieve 
active participation by citi zens as well as effective and democratic governance, and 
Europe’s diversities and commonalities in te rms of culture, instit utions, law, history, 
languages and values, relevant for Commission initiatives such as Plan D, citizenship 
policies in the areas of justice, liberty and security as well as in relation to education and culture. 
Furthermore, Societal Platforms have been set up, following the experience of technology 
platforms, to establish research agendas on diffi cult and complex issues relating to important 
societal debates. The platforms bring together  experts and civil soci ety stakeholders in 
appropriately structured dialogue.  
The Science in Society (SiS) Programme contribut es directly to structuring the relationship 
between research and policies in general (for example through scie ntific advice) as well as to 
education and gender equality polic ies in particular. The main initiatives taken the first years 
of FP7 are: 
• Launching research on the governance of fisherie s, and notably on the most useful forms 
of scientific advice for marine envir onmental management (SAFMAMS) and on 
participation of stakeholders (GAP1). Insi ghts from existing research projects and 
management processes were communicated  to scientists and decision makers.  
EN 42   EN • Launching research on wide-rangin g socio-cultural-economic as pects of alternative agri-
food production and in the environmental aspe cts of farming, relevant to the Common 
Agricultural Policy. 
• FP7 projects are fostering more inclusive gove rnance leading to acti ons and advocacy from 
citizens and civil society organisations thr ough producing a better understanding of the 
notion of "sustainable energy production and consumption", crossing perspectives from 
research, industry, civil society and policy makers, and involving citizens.  
• FP7 has advanced ideas about cooperative rese arch processes that have been taken up by 
the "Intelligent Energy – Europe" Opera tional Programme of the CIP 2007-2013, the 
Strategic Energy Technology Plan (COM( 2007) 723 final) and the Sustainable 
Consumption and Production and Sustainabl e Industrial Policy Action Plan (COM(2008) 
397 final).  
• The Science education initiative (follow-up of Rocard report) has been developed in close 
co-operation with DG EAC and is intended to  complement national efforts to improve 
science education. The close collaboration be tween the two DG's and the education and the 
research policy is demonstrated by th e use of a DG EAC led "Open Method of 
Coordination" group for the purpose of bette r defining the content of calls under the 
Science in Society programme.  
• Several actions of the Commission's policy on gender equality (see Roadmap on equality 
between women and men - COM 2006 final) ar e implemented throu gh the Science in 
Society programme. They have led to the publication of the repo rt "Mapping the maze. 
Getting more women to the top in research " and "Benchmarking policy measures for 
gender equality in science".  
Furthermore, the Science in Society Programme has supported two actions on better inclusion 
and collaboration with industry as  regards diversity of the Scie nce and Engineering workforce 
and the interest of young people in science a nd engineering professions. The Science in 
Society Programme supports indu stries in their efforts to be tter understand the conditions to 
increase the proportion of  women in their science and engin eering work force. This is done 
through a cost sharing scheme whereby the Science in Societ y programme provides funds to 
social science researchers (human resources ma nagement, behavioural science, organisation 
science) carrying ou t in-depth analyses in the participa ting companies. The industry partners 
in return contribute to their costs in meetings and best practice exchange and also make their employees available for the surveys. As a follow-up to the Rocard Report
40 and an initiative 
by the European Roundtable of Industrialists the Science in Society programme foresees 
funding for coordination and exchange of best practice as regards industry involvement in 
school science. 
Further fields of interest are partnerships be tween Civil Society Organisations (CSOs), which 
are organised around issues of public concern,  and Research Organisations (ROs). CSOs 
show a growing interest in getting involved in research policy, be it at the level of rendering 
research findings meaningful, c ontributing to research agenda se tting or even participating in 
research projects. A new scheme was set up in FP7 to provide a better frame for partnerships 
                                                 
40 European Commission (2007): Science Education Now: A Renewed Pedagogy for the Future of 
Europe. Luxembourg. 
EN 43   EN between CSOs and research organisations (ROs). This scheme has been used so far in 
sustainable development, social sciences and humanities. 
Co-operative Research Processe s (CRPs) involve different type s of actors and foster mutual 
learning. Co-operative Research Processes, involving notably CSOs besides researchers, 
policy makers, and mediators coul d be the embryo of a specific European way to "define and 
implement research priorities, engaging ci tizens and respecting common ethical norms". 
The Special Clause for Open Access represen ts a new feature desi gned to foster the 
distribution of knowledge. In August 2008, th e European Commission launched an open 
access pilot in FP7. Under this pilot, grant reci pients in seven areas (energy, environment, 
health, parts of information a nd communication technologies, resear ch infrastructures, science 
in society, and social sciences and humanities) will be required to (1) deposit peer reviewed 
research articles or final manuscripts resulting from their FP7 projects into an online repository, and to (2) make their best effort s to ensure open access to these articles. 
The pilot covers approximately 20% of the FP7 budget. A key objective is to ensure fast and 
reliable access to EU-funded res earch results, in order to driv e innovation, advance scientific 
discovery and support a str ong knowledge-based economy.  
3.2.2.6.  Fostering responsible Nanotechnologies 
As excellent research is becoming more and mo re complex and interdisciplinary and therefore 
more expensive, it requires a growing critical  mass. Hence the European Union, with a total 
of € 3.5 billion over the duration of FP7, has mo re than doubled the budget for R&D for the 
NMP theme (Nanosciences, Nanotechnologies, Materials & New Produc tion Technologies) 
compared to FP6. Scientific and technical development will benefit more and more from the convergence of new technologies, such as nanotechnology, ICT, etc., to develop novel 
approaches leading to advanced applications in  many fields (health, environment, etc.). This 
has already lead – and will lead – to the im plementation of coordinated calls between NMP 
and other priorities as well as joint calls with other countries . Bringing together public and 
private organisations across Europe to perform collaborative R&D is key for the 
interdisciplinary approach often needed fo r N&N (nanotechnologies and nanosciences) as 
well as for optimising resources. 
The potential economic impacts of nanoscience s and nanotechnologies research have been 
highlighted by many analysts. At the same time,  the emergence and innovative character of 
nanotechnology increases the society’s concer n regarding nanoparticle s hazards, e.g. on 
public health, safety, environmental and consumer  protection, as well as  civil liberties. The 
responsible management of na nosciences and nanotechnologies  has become an essential 
requirement in the last decade. FP7 tackles this challenge through funding for the "Fostering 
Responsible Nanotechnologies" theme. In a ddition, the Commission adopted in 2008 a Code 
of Conduct for Responsible Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies Research. This Code of 
Conduct will apply in the first instance to research supported by the European Commission and as a matter of fact has been already translated into the FP7 ethical review.  
3.2.2.7.  Security 
The evolving nature of Security issues in a rapidly changing world implies many challenges. 
Under FP7, EUR 1.4 billion have been dedicated for Security Research. Making Europe more 
secure for its citizens while increasing its indus trial competitiveness, is the goal of European 
EN 44   EN Security Research. Europe has never been so  peacefully consolidated, so prosperous and 
secure, yet at the same time so vulnerable agai nst threats like terrorism, organised crime and 
natural disasters. By cooperating and coordina ting efforts on a continent-wide scale, by 
stimulating the cooperation of providers and us ers for civil security solutions, the EU can 
better understand and respond to risks in a constantly changing world. 
Today, the evolving nature of security issues  in a rapidly changing world implies many new 
challenges. In order to protect our funda mental rights and freedom, technological 
preparedness and response of society to potential or actual threats are essential. 
Moreover, the relationship be tween defence technologies on the one hand, an d security 
technologies on the other, is particularly noticea ble in the field of R& D, with technologies 
that show potential developments in both areas  (Dual Use). At both research and industrial 
development levels, synergies are possible and desirable. 
FP7 Security Research activities (current ly already more th en 45 projects) are 
multidisciplinary and mission oriented. It ranges from technology and methodology 
development to systems integration. In addi tion, societal aspects are also addressed. 
Overall psychological dimension and preparedness is  also of highest importance at all stages, 
including prevention, crisis and after crisis management. This remains a major challenge for our societies, and it is therefor e very promising to see that FP7 security R&D efforts in this 
field are increasing substantially. 
3.2.2.8.  Information and Communication Technologies R&D and Innovation 
Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) are at the core of the knowledge society. 
Community activities con tinue to strengthen Europe's sc ientific and tec hnology base. They 
help drive and stimulate product, service and process innovation as well as creativity through 
ICT use. ICT R&D and innovation create benefits  for Europe's citizens, businesses, industry 
and governments, and reduce the digita l divide and social exclusion.  
The Commission has recently released a Communication to propose a Strategy for ICT 
Research, Development and Innovation
41 in the EU with a view to establishing Europe's 
industrial and technologi cal leadership in ICT, making Euro pe more attractive to investments 
in ICT R&D&I and to the best ICT skills, an d ensuring that Europe's economy and society 
benefit fully from ICT developments.  
All together, around 550 ICT projects have been  launched since the start of FP7 covering 7 
major technological or societal challenges in addition to Future and Emerging Technologies 
(FET) scheme (see below). In most cases, this re sulted in a coherent proj ect portfolio made up 
by a mix of large structuring integrated project s and smaller more focu ssed and agile projects 
exploring new research avenues. In all cases  the portfolio involves a participant mix of 
industry, including SMEs, research centre s and higher education organisations. 
Activities funded under ICT in FP7 are focused on the contributions which ICT can make to 
key societal or technological challenges. Some illustrative examples are given below: 
                                                 
41 European Commission (2009): Communication "A Strategy for ICT R&D and Innovation in Europe: 
Raising the Game", COM(2009)116. Brussels. 
EN 45   EN • ICT for Energy-Efficiency : To protect the environment and maintain its prosperity and 
competitiveness on global markets, Europe has to focus on energy efficiency in the most 
energy-intensive sectors. This requires research in information and communication 
technologies for advanced transport management  and control, intelligent power grids or 
more energy-efficient buildings. 39 projects have been launched  since the start of FP7 to 
develop and test much needed solutions. 
• ICT for Health : Another successful example for cro ss-disciplinary research is the Virtual 
Physiological Human Initiative (VPH).  This global initiative focuses on computer-based 
modelling and data processi ng of biomedical data for clini cal applications in the areas of 
surgical training, planning and intervention; prediction or early diagnosis of disease; 
assessment of the efficacy and safety of speci fic drugs. Within ICT in FP7, a portfolio of 
15 projects, totalling a fundi ng of €72 million contributes to the VHP Initiative.  
• ICT for Ageing Well: In response to the societal  challenge of demographic change towards 
a rapidly ageing population, a large scale in itiative on ICT for Ageing Well has been 
launched in FP7. New ICT solutions can allow el derly people to be socially included and 
to live longer independently at home rather  than in institutions by providing integrated 
support services providing for example safe ty, daily living support, mobility and care 
specifically adapted to the needs of elderl y people and their care rs. This can strongly 
increase quality of life and lead to substantia l reductions of the rising costs, in addition to 
creating new markets for relevant products and services. So far more than 30 projects with 
more than 50 million Euro funding have been launched, and this is complemented by the Ambient Assisted Living Joint Programme w ith involvement of 23 European Countries 
and 150 Million Euro funding from FP7. In a ddition there are currently 10 large pilot 
projects on ICT for Ageing Well launched under the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme with involvement of  35 regions across Europe. 
• Future Internet : The internet is today a crucial el ement of our economy, and the Future 
Internet will play an even more vital role  in every conceivable business process. The 
structural limitations of today's Internet in terms of scalability, mobility, security and trust are increasingly being recognised world-wide, and research is necessary and underway to 
invent the "Future Internet". It  is therefore important that actions are taken today to make 
the future Internet fit for new and increased expectations among users,  businesses, citizens 
and governments. In order to foster the Eur opean RTD capabilities in this domain, more 
than 90 projects have been launched so far as part of FP7. More than 450 M€ are dedicated 
to this theme in the new ICT Work Programme. 
In addition to funding research projects centred around clearly identified technology or 
societal challenges, the ICT Theme also suppor ts frontier research: Th e Future and Emerging 
Technologies (FET) scheme acts as a pathfinder fo r new avenues of resear ch, with the agility 
to react to new ideas and opportu nities as they arise from w ithin science or society. FET 
research builds new bridges between science and technology and provides a basis for future 
research agendas. The FP7 FET portfolio is now made of about 75 new projects.  
ICT also play a central role in the Research In frastructures part of the Capacities Programme: 
Support is provided to ICT-based research infrastructures (eInfr astructure). Th is builds on the 
success of the GÉANT research network and the research-Grids infrastr ucture supported in 
FP6 and in the first phase of FP7 and will provide higher performance computing, data 
handling and networking facilities for Europ ean researchers in all science and technology 
fields.  
EN 46   EN As stated in the above mentioned Comm ission Communication, maintaining Europe's 
competitiveness requires bridging the gap between research and innovation. In this respect, it 
is vital to coordinate activi ties under the FP with actions supported by the Competitiveness 
and Innovation Programme (CIP). The ICT Policy Support Programme (PSP)  supports 
activities to accelerate innovation and implementation of ICT-based services and systems through the wider uptake and best use of ICT and the exploitation of digital content by 
citizens, governments, and businesses in such thematic areas as ICT for health, ageing and 
inclusion, eGovernment as well as Digital Librar ies. Following the first call for proposals of 
the ICT PSP (WP2007), 22 projects were cont racted and a second call is now opened.  
An example for an activity funded under the Di gital Libraries initiative is Europeana, 
Europe’s multimedia and multilingual online library, museum and archive. The service was launched on 20 November 2008 in Brussels. Europeana opens up new ways of exploring Europe’s heritage by giving free and fast access to Europe's greatest collections and 
masterpieces in a single vi rtual environment through a we b portal available in 21 EU 
languages. Access is provided to more than three million books, maps, sound recordings, photographs, archival documents, paintings and fi lms from cultural institu tions of the EU's 27 
Member States. Europeana is co-f unded by the eContentplus programme. 
3.2.2.9.  Joint Research Centre (JRC) 
Since the beginning of FP7, the Joint Resear ch Centre (JRC) has oriented its Work 
Programme towards a more direct interaction with policy needs of the Commission Services. 
In this context, the JRC supports a broad range  of policies through techno-economic analyses, 
the development and validation of test methods , standards and referenc e materials (regulatory 
support), harmonisation of methods and measur ements, experimental and modelling work.  
Through its cooperation with a wide range of organisations and authorities in EU Member 
States, the JRC is contributing to the European Research Area. For the remainder of FP7, the JRC will continue such contribution through its pa rticipation in scientif ic networks and in 
indirect actions and through the provis ion of access to its large facilities. 
A recent Ex-post Evaluation of the JRC’s activities in FP6, conducted by an international 
panel led by Sir David King
42, has concluded that "The  JRC has undergone a major 
transformation over the last 10 ye ars, consolidating its position as an indispensable source of 
knowledge and expertise in support of the political agenda of the EU".  
The JRC has continued on this  track in FP7, providing impor tant support to EU policy 
priorities. For example, on climate change the JRC has provided material and studies 
supporting the Commission's position in the upcoming discussion on the post-Kyoto 
initiatives. The JRC has provided analyses on the co-benefits of the "two degree" climate 
policy. Its reference work on emissi ons of air pollutants was continued , and the impact of air 
pollution policies on climate change and health  was evaluated.  
In the area of energy the JRC is supporting the SET-Plan establishment and development in 
particular by providing t echnology and capacity mapping.  The scope of the capacity map is to 
provide an overview of the energy research cap acities in the EU Member States through an 
inventory of companies involved in energy re search, public and private spending on energy 
                                                 
42 http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/jrc/downloads/2008_expost_fp6_evaluation_final_report_en.pdf  
EN 47   EN research, institutions involved in energy res earch, pull instruments used for market 
deployment of innovative technologies.  
In March 2008 the JRC document Biofuels in the European C ontext: Facts and Uncertainties  
represented a significant input to the development of the Re newable Energy Directive. The 
report outlined the possible magnitude of ca rbon emissions in Developing Countries, 
indirectly caused by land use changes possibly induced by the EU Biofuels Policy; it also 
pointed at uncertainties  and open questions.  
The JRC has been working closely with Comm ission Services and Member States in the 
Common Implementation Strategy of the Wa ter Framework Directive (WFD). Major 
achievements were obtained in inte rcalibration: Intercalibration is  the process at the heart of 
the Directive setting the criteri a for the Good Ecological Status to be achieved by Member 
States for all their surface waters by 2015. It  compared ecological water quality assessment 
systems among countries sharing simila r types of surface water bodies.  
On International Cooperation, the  JRC is developing thematic information systems and 
decision-making tools for Europe an Commission Services and Af rican stakeholders such as 
the EU Water Initiative Content Information System, monthly bulletins on food security in the 
Horn of Africa, the Assessment of African Prot ected Areas, the Soil Atlas of Africa, the 
Global Atlas of Desertification, et c. JRC has also installed in Ce ntral Africa an observatory on 
rainforests, combining satellite information and field observations on deforestation, logging 
and biodiversity. Under the AU-EU  Strategic Partnership, JRC is  coordinating the action plan 
for GMES Africa, (Priority 8 on Science, Information Society and Space) and is also 
contributing to the Chapter on Peace and Secur ity. Capacities-building activities are also 
conducted in Africa, by short-term training sessi ons, on-project actions or secondment of JRC 
staff to the African Union Commission. 
On security policy, the JRC has been providing  scientific and technical support on monitoring 
illegal mining activities by means of satellite re mote sensing (the Kimberley process). In the 
context of a tri-lateral Memorandum of U nderstanding between the European Commission, 
the World Bank and the United Nations the J RC has carried out comprehensive civilian 
damage assessments of buildings and transport in frastructures in the core conflict and disaster 
areas of recently damaged te rritories (e.g. Lebanon, and conf lict in Georgia. Another 
successful example of early warning systems de veloped by the JRC is the Continental Early 
Warning System (CEWS) in c ooperation with the African Union’s Peace and Security 
Directorate to facilitate the anticipati on and prevention of co nflicts in Africa. 
Other important achievements were in the fiel d of food safety, where the JRC is the main 
provider of certified reference materials in supp ort to EU regulations on the labelling of GM 
products in food and feed. The JRC hosts the Eu ropean Coexistence Bur eau jointly with DG 
AGRI, in charge of producing guidelines for best  agricultural practices in the coexistence of 
GM crops with conventional crops. 
In relation to the EURATOM Wo rk programme, the JRC activities on nuclear safety include 
the extension of the TRANSURANUS code for m odelling nuclear fuels to those of Russian 
Pressurized Water Reactors; the launch of the "European Clearing House" to exchange, in the 
interest of European national safety author ities, best practice on nuclear power plants 
operational events. Substantial scie ntific progress was achieved in  the field of advanced spent 
fuel reprocessing and of the se paration of highly radiotoxic elem ents, and in nuclear security 
(forensic analysis of several finds of illicit trafficking). The JRC continued its successful 
EN 48   EN coordination of the EURATOM participation in GIF (Generation IV International Forum) and 
pursued its related scientific activities.  
Finally, the Joint Research Cent re is currently developing its long-term vision and strategy in 
order to enable it to make the step-change in  its policy support suggested by the King report. 
This is definitely a challenge for the future, as the JRC needs to meet constantly growing expectations of its customers. This will requi re regular upgrading of key infrastructures.  
3.2.2.10.  Space 
The objectives of the FP7 Space theme relate di rectly to the EU sustainable development 
strategy (SDS), with the major pa rt of the programme being devot ed to applications such as 
global monitoring for environment and security  (GMES) with benefits for citizens. GMES 
and monitoring of climate change issues are integral parts of the space work programme 
which aims to bring data and information providers together to help improve the quality, accuracy and timeliness of environmental info rmation available to decision makers. By 
combining data from satellites and earth-based in-s itu monitoring facilities, it will be easier to 
assess environmental impacts and also provide forecasting services as well as mapping support for emergency management. 
In the framework of the European Developmen t Strategy, space applications such as Earth 
observation or satellite communi cations have been recognized as a central tool to support 
Africa in its sustainable economic and social development. Knowledge relating to the main 
agricultural crops (for countries both inside and outside th e EU) is indispensable to adopt 
appropriate policies concerni ng sustainable development planning and food security. 
The initial period of FP7 has s een a major part of the space re search activities devoted to 
sustainable development by supporting GMES related service development as well as 
contributing significantly to the funding of th e GMES space infrastructure necessary to 
provide space based observational data. 
3.3. A Boost for Frontier Research: The European Research Council 
The creation of the European Research Council  (ERC) as a flagship of the EU's Seventh 
Framework Programme was a landmark ev ent for science policy in Europe.  
The European Research Council (ERC) is th e first trans-European funding body set up to 
support investigator-driven frontie r research in Europe. The E RC was formally launched in 
February 2007
43 with the main aim to stimulate sc ientific excellence by supporting and 
encouraging the very best scie ntists, scholars and e ngineers to perform research beyond the 
established frontiers of knowledge  and the boundaries of discipli nes. The European Research 
Council (ERC) has been given the mandate to deliver competitive research funding at the 
frontier of knowledge, and at EU level, thus  adding value to and complementing national 
research funding schemes. This presents new and exciting opportunities for frontier research 
in Europe. Researcher's national ity is not an eligibility criteri on as the programme also aims 
to retain and attract to Eu rope the best researchers. 
                                                 
43 Commission Decision No 134/2007/EC of 2 February 2007 establishing the European Research 
Council (OJ L 57, p.14). Brussels. 
EN 49   EN The ERC consists of an independent Scientif ic Council (ScC) com posed of scientists, 
engineers and scholars of the highest repute, representing the European research community 
in all its breadth and depth, supported by a De dicated Implementation Structure (DIS). The 
Dedicated Implementation Structure has been legally established as an Executive Agency 
(European Research Council Executive Agency – ERCEA) and will be fully operational by 
2009. Until then, a dedicated servic e of the European Commission has the task of building up 
the operational capacities and manageme nt of the ERC funding activities. 
The ERC concept that a body like the independent  Scientific Council (S cC) would establish a 
scientific strategy for frontier research fo r Europe and that it would be effectively 
implemented was an innovative and high risk a pproach within FP7. However, the first two 
years have demonstrated that with the necessary  vision, scientific leadership, commitment and 
effort the concept of a new trans-European enti ty for funding frontier research could become a 
reality. The ERC has successfully set up stru ctures and mechanisms and implemented 
investigator-driven grant schemes in all fields  of research based on the sole criterion of 
excellence. 
The Scientific Council has designed the ERC gr ant schemes to promote research excellence in 
all fields of knowledge and schol arship and to secure the co rresponding human capital, by 
both retaining in Europe and progressively recr uiting from overseas some  of the top research 
talent of both the current and the next generation. 
Two "core" schemes have been developed by th e ERC within the FP7. Both operate without 
predefined thematic pr iorities; individual research inve stigators have the opportunity to 
propose "bottom-up" research projects including hi gh risk, interdisciplinar y projects, that are 
evaluated on the sole criterion of excellence. 
• ERC Starting Grants : Supporting the transition to an independent career for excellent 
researchers, whatever their nationality, located  in or moving to the Member States and 
associated countries, who are at the stage of starting or consolidating their own 
independent research team or, depending on the field, establishing  their independent 
research programme. 
• ERC Advanced Grants : Supporting excellent, innovative i nvestigator-initi ated research 
projects across the Member States and associ ated countries, directed by leading advanced 
investigators of whatever age, who have already established themselves as being 
independent research lead ers in their own right. 
These schemes have been well received by th e research community and already over 500 
frontier-research projects resul ting from the first calls of the ERC Starting Grant and ERC 
Advanced Grant schemes have started in pres tigious research institutions in Europe.  
3.3.1.  The ERC Peer Review Evaluation Process 
Setting up the ERC peer review system was a majo r priority for the Scientific Council during 
2007. It established Panels covering all scientif ic domains - Social Sciences and Humanities 
(SH), Life Sciences (LS) and Physical and E ngineering Sciences (PE) covering a broad range 
of topics, to ensure that proper consideration would be given to high qua lity, interdisciplinary 
proposals. Twenty panels were set up for the first ERC Starting Grants  call in 2007 covering 
all scientific domains. In 2008, no major changes were made to the ERC peer review system, 
the only adjustments made dealing with the hand ling of inter-disciplinar y proposals. Based on 
EN 50   EN the experience gained from the Starting Grants ca ll, the number of panels was increased to 25 
for the first ERC call for Advanced Grants. 
The ERC put in place redress procedures, fo llowing the model established for FP7. In 2007, 
the "Ideas" configuratio n of the redress committee considered 245 redress requests relating to 
the 9167 proposals submitted following the stage 1 peer review evaluation; this number represents approximately 3% of the total number of applications. The redress committee concluded that 15 of these cases (6% of comp laints; 0.16% of proposal s received) required a 
re-evaluation, resulting in 1 proposal being pa ssed to stage 2. Following the stage 2 evaluation 
procedures, 27 cases were received and have been processed, but none were retained. 
In 2008, the "Ideas" configuration of the redr ess committee considered 172 redress requests 
relating to the 2166 proposals submitted following eligibility check (cases on eligibility 
status: 48) and peer revi ew step 1 or step 2 evaluation ( cases on evaluation:  124); this number 
represents approximately 7.9% of the total number of applications . The redress committee 
concluded that 14 of these cases (11% of comp laints; 0.6% of proposals received) required an 
evaluation (5 eligibility cases) or a re-evaluat ion (9 evaluation cases). These 14 cases are 
under process. 
3.3.2.  Performance of the Calls 
The first Starting Grant call was published in  December 2006 with a deadline in April 2007. 
The budget announced for the call was approxi mately €290 million. A total of 9167 proposals 
were received of which 8794 were peer reviewed. At the end of the firs t stage, 559 successful 
applicants (6%) were invited to submit a more detailed proposal for the second stage 
evaluation by the deadline of 17 September. Th e outcome of the evaluation process was a list 
ranking the proposals according to the conclusions of the panels. With applications averaging 
~€1 million, 299 (54%) applicants were funded. 
The first call for Advanced Grants was publis hed in November 2007 with deadlines for the 
following February (Physical Sciences and Engineering), March (Social Sciences and 
Humanities) and April (Life Sciences). The budget announced for the call was approximately €490 million. A total of 2.167 proposals were rece ived. At the end of the first stage 275 
successful applicants (12,7 %) were on the top list. 
The ERC funds all research areas and scientif ic disciplines. However, for operational 
purposes, each call budget is pre-allocated as follows: 
• Physical Sciences and Engineering: 39% 
• Life Sciences including Medicine: 34% 
• Social Sciences and Humanities: 14% 
The remaining 13% were pre-allocated to proposals of an interdisciplinary nature. 
Of the successful applicants, 2,2% are not currently living in Eu rope. Regarding host 
institutions, the majority of them (88%) are located in the EU with the remaining 12% situated in an Associated Country. 72% of the principal investigators will undertake their 
projects in higher education establishments, 22 % in public research centres, 4% in private 
(non profit) research centres/ foundations and the reminder in private/commercial research 
centres and international research centres. 
EN 51   EN The average age of the successful a pplicants is just above 51 years . Gender distribution 
differs largely between the various domains, with a considerably higher number of women 
selected in the area of Social Sciences and Hu manities (18%), as opposed to the domains Life 
Sciences (16%) and Physical Sciences Engineering (6%).  
3.3.3.  Observing Sound Ethical Prin ciples of FP Research 
Of the 299 projects selected for funding under th e 2007 Starting Grants call, 95 were screened 
by an external ethics panel of which 40 were subjected to a full ethical review. One project 
involves the use of human embr yonic stem cells and has been submitted for opinion of the 
"Ideas" Programme Committee for re gulatory approval (October 2008). 
For the 2008 Advanced Grants call 128 proposal s were flagged for ethical screening. The 
screening revealed 55 proposals needing full ethical review, 2 of  which proposed to make use 
of human embryonic stem cells. Copies of na tional approvals were requested in 62 cases 
where a full ethical review was not required.  The full ethical review was held during 
November 2008. In two cases, a new ethical revi ew was requested. This was performed in 
January 2009, and the two proposals were approve d on condition that the applicants present 
further documentation. 
There are many challenges still ahead for the ERC. In 2009, the budget for the Ideas 
Programme will surpass 1 Billion Euro and bot h the ERC Starting Grant and ERC Advanced 
Grant schemes will operate. The recruitment to the ERC Executive Agency (ERCEA) during 
early 2009 will ensure that the ERC has the ca pacities and competences to implement these 
two schemes simultaneously. The target is to complete all the required administrative and 
management measures to achieve the opera tional autonomy of the ERCEA by June 2009.  
The ERC has already had a significant impact in stimulating Europe's capabilities in frontier 
research and the enthusiastic response from the scientific community has justified the need for 
such an entity in Europe's portfolio of research programmes. 
3.4. Partnership with Industry 
3.4.1.  European Technology Platforms 
European Technology Platforms (ETPs)44 demonstrate the Commi ssion's commitment to 
strongly engage industry in developing the direction of rese arch and have gained particular 
momentum in 2008. All 36 ETPs have produ ced Strategic Research Agendas, which 
encourage a better coordination of R&D efforts and articula te the views of industry, 
academia, civil society and other stakeholders on the needs and challenges in key technology 
areas at European level. These Strategic Res earch Agendas inspired the design of the main 
priorities of FP7 and conti nue to contribute to the de velopment of the annual work-
programmes of FP7. ETPs also in fluence priority-setting in na tional research programmes and 
stimulate the mobilisation of research actors at national level via the formation of national platforms. In addition, ETPs have spearheaded the Commission's aim to implement different 
forms of large-scale public-private partners hips: five ETPs have spun off Joint Technology 
Initiatives, with more in the pipeline, and others  have contributed to indu strial initiatives such 
as the SET Plan. A number of  ETPs have moved beyond research agendas by contributing to 
                                                
 
44 More information on the European Technology Platforms can be found on 
http://cordis.europa.eu/technology-platforms/ 
EN 52   EN the design of the Lead Markets Initiative, the production of standards, reviews of regulatory 
frameworks, and the strengtheni ng of international research cooperation. Many are also active 
in research policy debates, includ ing those on the future of ERA. 
3.4.2.  Joint Technology Initiatives 
JTIs are a pioneering approach to  develop public-private  partnerships set up at European level 
in order to leverage more R& D investments from Member States, Associated Countries and 
industry, to boost European competitiveness and to  reduce fragmentation of EU R&D. Strong 
reasons for setting up JTIs are the rapid pace of technological change, the rising costs of 
research, the increasing complexity and interd ependence of technologies, and the potential 
economies of scale to be gained by cooperation across Europe. 
JTIs arise primarily from the work of Europ ean Technology Platforms. In a small number of 
cases, European Technology Platforms have achieve d such an ambitious scale and scope that 
they will require the mobilisation of high public and private investments as well as substantial 
research resources to implement important elemen ts of their Strategic Research Agendas. JTIs 
represent an effective means of meeting the needs of this small number of European 
Technology Platforms. 
In practical terms, a JTI is  a legally established body (a Joint Undertaking ), set up on the 
basis of Article 171 of the EC Treaty. Strategi c Research Agendas have been developed for 
the areas addressed by JTIs through intense co llaboration between i ndustry, including SMEs, 
the research community, civil society organisa tions and other stakeholders. These agendas 
provide clear and sound bases fo r the work programmes of the JTIs, which show a significant 
leverage effect. JTI members are jointly resp onsible for monitoring progress, guiding the 
evolution of the initiatives and adapting the wo rk programmes in response to changing needs. 
In this respect, each JTI pr oduces an annual activity report and reports to the Council and 
European Parliament. In addition, the Co mmission will undertak e midterm and final 
evaluations of each JTI. JTIs have a dedi cated budget and staff. The Joint Undertaking 
provides a framework for the publi c and private players to work and take decisions together. 
It organises calls for proposals, oversees select ion procedures and puts in place contractual 
arrangements for projects set up to implement the JTI research agenda. It allows funds from different sources to be jointly managed and is responsible for communication and 
dissemination activities. Each Joint Undertak ing includes one or more decision-making 
bodies, an Executive Director and staff, as we ll as internal or external advisory bodies. 
In line with the FP7 Cooperation Specific Pr ogramme, the Commissi on presented proposals 
for Council Regulations for the follo wing first four JTIs in mid-2007. 
• Innovative Medicines (IMI)  aims to provide new methodologies and tools for accelerating 
the development of safer and more effective me dicines for patients, by focusing of research 
is on developing and validating new techniques and methods.  
• Embedded Computing Systems (ARTEMIS)  aims to help European industry consolidate and 
reinforce its world leadership in building computing systems into various kinds of 
electronic equipment or machines. 
• Clean Sky  in the field of aeronautics envisages th at innovative, greener  technologies will 
be demonstrated and validated;  new technologies are being deve loped, test flight will be 
conducted; the result of successful prototypes  can be exploited by aeronautics companies.  
EN 53   EN • ENIAC seeks to develop key technologies for nanoelectronics, and key components and 
devices across different application areas in order to strengthen European competitiveness 
and sustainability, and to facilitate the emerge nce of new markets and societal applications 
in sectors such as health, transport and energy. 
These Regulations were formally adopted on 20 December 2007 and published in the Official 
Journal on 04 February 200845.  
A fifth Regulation was adopted on 30 May 2008 and published in the OJ on 12 June 200846: 
• Fuel Cells & Hydrogen (FCH)  with the overall objective of  speeding up the development 
of hydrogen supply and fuel cell technologies,  
The JTIs have either launched and already cl osed their first calls for proposals in 2008 – 
based on the principles of exce llence and competition - or entered into the first agreements 
with named beneficiaries.  
Work within the Commission is continuing on a number of practical  issues such as 
recruitment of the JTIs staff,  identification of a long-term housing solution, implementation of 
an accounting system. JTIs are expected to re ach financial autonomy in 2009. While it is too 
early to already assess their impacts, some tentative first lessons can already be drawn 
considering that JTIs are already proving a va luable pilot experience in setting up public-
private partnerships in res earch at European level.  
Irrespective of technological advances which can be expected, what really matters for the 
success of the initiatives is the proper functio ning of the partnerships, with industry playing 
its role to the full side by side with the Commission to achieve maximum industrial value 
from every Euro invested. JTIs are expected to  play an important role  in shaping Europe's 
research landscape, by stimulating research investment, building critical mass by uniting 
fragmented efforts and accelerati ng the process of converting the results of Europe's research 
into marketable goods and services fo r the benefit of European citizens. 
It should be noted that building on the su ccess of ENIAC and ARTEM IS, preparatory work 
towards a large-scale European public-private partnership on the Future Internet has also started. 
3.4.3.  Marie Curie Industry-Academia Pathways and Partnerships 
Marie Curie Industry-Academia Pathways and Pa rtnerships (IAPP) are transfer of knowledge 
networks designed to support commercial and non-commercial research organisations in 
working together on topics that are relevant to industry at that time. IAPPs aim at opening and 
fostering dynamic pathways between public re search organisations and private commercial 
enterprises, in particular SMEs, including traditional manufacturing industries, based on 
longer term co-operation programmes with a hi gh potential for increasing knowledge-sharing 
and mutual understanding of the different cu ltural settings and skill requirements of both 
sectors. Partners include universities and comp anies of all shapes and sizes. Focussing on 
joint research projects, IAPPs aim to boost sk ills exchange between the commercial and non-
commercial sectors. 
                                                
 
45 OJ L30, 04.02.2008, p.1-20, p.21-37, p.38-51, p.52-68. 
46 OJ L153, 12.06.2008, p.1-20 
EN 54   EN Noting the importance of proximity in knowledg e transfer, the action allows some 30% of 
local technology transfer while the remainder must be embedded in an industrially relevant 
network across Europe, and opti onally also including Third C ountries industry. The long term 
aim is to create industry - academia networks  in specific areas of technology which are 
defined through need, not political ly driven priority setting. 
3.4.4.  Recovery Package 
There is a risk that the current economic downt urn will cause a slow down of measures and 
investments to push for a knowledge-based so ciety. As stepping up R&D efforts remains 
crucial to boost Europe's competitiveness a nd sustainable economic growth, targeted and 
timely countercyclical investment s in R&D are central both for overcoming the crisis and for 
laying the longer-term foundations for sustaina ble economic growth and employment. This 
need for further reforms and investments oriented  to research and inno vation is an essential 
part of the recovery packag e endorsed by the EU Summit in December 2008. It aims at 
directing action to investments in the right skill s for tomorrow's needs, in energy efficiency, in 
clean technologies in the construction and auto mobile sector, and in infrastructure and inter-
connection. The Commission is preparing three new public-pri vate partnerships to boost 
research efforts in the industr ial sectors most seriously aff ected by the economic downturn: 
automotive, construction and manufacturing. The re search activities will be complemented in 
a coherent and integrated manner by demand side  measures - such as public procurement, 
standardisation activities - including linking it to existi ng lead market initiatives. 
3.5. A new Approach to International Cooperation 
International scientific  and technological cooperation has be en part of the EU RTD policies, 
since the launch of FP1 in 1983. Initially, this  cooperation targeted de veloping countries and 
included research themes related to sustainabl e development issues and key challenges, such 
as health, food safety, agriculture , natural resources, water, envi ronment protection, etc. In the 
beginning of the 1990s, similar scientific an d technological coopera tion activities were 
established with Central and Eastern Europ ean Countries and emer ging economies, all of 
these brought together in 1994, by the INCO  Programme, a dedicated programme for 
international cooperation under FP4 ( 1994-1998) and FP5 (1998-2002). The ERA 
Communication adopted in January 2000 identifie d the need to enhance the international 
dimension of research within  and beyond Europe, and more sy stematic efforts to open the 
ERA to the world started to be implemented in FP6 giving Third Country researchers the possibility to participate into two ways, na mely through a dedicated FP6 INCO programme
47 
and through the innovative general opening of  thematic areas to all Third Countries. 
FP7 triggered important changes in internatio nal research cooperati on: A more proactive 
approach in the relationship with  our foreign partners, a more systematic coordination of the 
international components of the Framework Programme, and renewed efforts to ensure 
                                                 
47 Under FP6, the INCO Programme was organised around groups of countries, addressing the following 
thematic areas and with the following allocated budget:  
(a) Developing countries  – health and public health; rational use of natural resources; food security 
– € 152,7 million;  
(b) Mediterranean partner countries  – environment, including water renewable energies and 
cultural heritage; health – € 64,9 million;  
(c) Western Balkan countries  – environment; health – € 19,8 million;  
(d) The Russian Federation and NIS  – environmental protection - adjusting the system for 
industrial production; communication and health protection – € 85,2 million. 
EN 55   EN coherence and complementarity with the extern al policies and programmes of the EU. This 
new approach has changed drastically the content of the international cooperation activities of 
the Capacities Programme, moving away from th ematically and geographically focussed calls 
for research projects (now integrated within FP7 thematic programmes) to coordination and competence building activities i nvolving more policy oriented participants e.g. INCO-NET, 
ACCESS4EU and BILAT projects.  
Association of Third Countries  to the Framework Programme has reached an unprecedented 
scope, with 12 - mainly European - countries
48 presently associate d, including all of the 
Western Balkan states. This makes FP7 a true pan-European programme and strongly 
underpins the objective of building a wider ERA. 
Science & Technology (S&T) Co operation Agreements establish a legal framework to 
promote S&T cooperation activities between the Communities and Third Countries. Since 
1998, the European Community has concluded S&T agreements with 17 countries49 (soon 
20), including almost all the industrialised and emerging countries and a significant number of 
developing ones; another 15 agreements (soon 18) exist under EURATOM. The implementation of these agreements has become considerably more conc rete and substantial, 
largely thanks to the possibility to translate co mmon priorities and commitments, as identified 
by the Joint Committees, into targeted calls notab ly through a series of coordinated calls with 
Russia, China, India and Brazil. 
The S&T Agreements are being used during FP7 to strengthen international collaboration 
with Third Countries on comm only set priorities and through specific mechanisms such as 
targeted and co-funded activities such as Specific International Coordination Actions  (SICAs) 
and Coordinated Calls. A variet y of schemes including SICAs, but  also "twinning" of projects 
at programme level, (SICAs), and "targe ted opening" calls, aiming at supporting joint 
research activities on areas of common interest and benefit, have also  been used in the 
Cooperation Programme to reinforce the partic ipation of Third Countries in the various 
thematic areas thus increasing the inte rnational dimension of their actions.  
The Research International Cooperation (R IC) coordination group – involving all the 
Commission services supporting resear ch - proved to be an indisp ensible tool to help ensure 
the consistency of internationa l cooperation activities thr oughout the Framework Programme. 
Through the RIC, and through systematic work of monitoring and analysis of the international 
components of the work programmes, the DG c ould strengthen its international outreach and 
better comply with its international commitments. 
The new design of FP7 offers strengthened  opportunities to reinforce international 
cooperation. This opportunity has been explo ited by the themes, (e.g. by the energy, the ICT 
and the Socio-economic Sciences and Human ities themes, to name only a few), and many 
successful initiatives have been launched. For example, regional and bilateral agreements are implemented by SSH according to societal challenges relevant both for the EU and the specific regions. More than ever, internatio nal cooperation is the key to address major 
technological (e.g. Next Gen Internet, higher en ergy efficiency, networks  security) and major 
societal challenges (e.g. sustainable health care, ageing, transpor t, global warming). 
International research coope ration on ICT offers a potent ial to increase European 
                                                
 
48 Albania, Croatia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Bosnia and 
Herzegovina, Turkey, Iceland, Liechtens tein, Norway, Israel, and Switzerland. 
49 Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China,  Egypt, India, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, 
Republic of Korea, The Russian Federation, South Africa, Tunisia, Ukraine, USA. 
EN 56   EN competitiveness both internally and on global markets. EU co-operation is of particular 
importance with both high-income countries an d emerging economies in areas where there is 
clear reciprocity in knowledge sharing and where financial risks associated with the 
introduction of research resu lts to the market are high. 
Even areas, where competitiveness is a key- issue and the competitiveness of the European 
transport industry has to be improved and not to be endangered, benefitted from the new opportunities, the transport  theme, with collaboration with China (SICA), a coordinated call 
with Russia and bi-lateral agreements with  India and South Africa being an example. 
The Marie Curie International Research Staff Exchange Scheme (IRSES) is a new action 
aiming at solely at improving in ternational cooperation with ke y partnership countries. It 
offers opportunities for a dynamic series of short term exchanges of not only scientific staff, 
but also staff that support research at strate gic and operational leve ls. The IRSES Action has 
been successfully launched. Already in the first call in 2008, some 179 institutions from 75% of all eligible Third Countries applied. 
It should not be overlooked that , in strategic terms,  the Marie Curie Actions are the most 
international initiatives in FP7. Almost all c ountries globally can participate in almost any 
research or training activity. In some cases, the FP7 pays for the costs of short term 
fellowships for Third Country researchers, thei r strategic and manageme nt staff and technical 
teams to create lasting networks of coopera tion. There is an ongoing commitment which is 
confirmed annually to focus not  less than 25% of all funds in International Cooperation 
projects. 
Future International Cooperation activities will reinforce the external dimension of the 
European Research Area (ERA) and in particul ar contribute to the implementation of the 
Strategic European Framework fo r International S&T Cooperation
50. This Communication 
sets out a series of orientati ons for action to make the ERA more open to the world, namely 
(1) integrating Europe's neighbours into the ER A; (2) fostering co-operation with key Third 
Countries through geographic and thematic targeting; (3) improving the framework conditions 
for international S&T cooperation (including on gl obal research infrastruc tures; mobility of 
researchers and global networ king; opening up of research programmes and on intellectual 
property issues). These actions will be developed th rough the implementation of a sustainable 
partnership between Member St ates and the EC as provided for by the conclusions of the 
Council of 2 December 200851. 
A Strategic Forum for Internati onal Cooperation will be establis hed in 2009 at the request of 
the Council, and this will develop the partnershi p between Member States  and the EC in the 
context of the further realisation of the ERA. One of the aims of the Strategic Forum is to 
develop common priorities for international coop eration which should lead to joint activities 
and positions vis-à-vis Third Countri es and within international fora. 
Association Agreements led to a more intensive coope ration with the closes t partners of the 
EU. In addition to the 12 countri es currently to the FP, Moldova and Russia have formally 
requested to be associated. Furthermore, th e association to the FP will be opened for ENP 
Countries including the Mediterra nean Dialogue Countries. Th is process of widening the 
geographical scope of the ERA will significantly contribute to the EU’s policy goals towards 
                                                 
50 European Commission (2008): Communication "A strategic European Framework for International 
Science and Technology Cooperation", COM(2008)588. Brussels. 
51 Conclusions of the 2891st Competitiveness Council, 2nd December 2008 
EN 57   EN these countries, in particular  building sustainable economic pr osperity. In this context FP7 
INCO-Net has an important role  to play through provision of s upport to regional platforms for 
S&T policy dialogue and priority setting at bi-re gional level bringing together Member States 
and European Neighbourhood Partnership (E NP) countries in this process.  
The funding mechanisms implemented under FP7 (SICAs, etc.) will continue to be the 
mainstay of international S&T Cooperation actions , but will progressivel y be influenced by 
the new Strategic European Framework. The Framework provides fo r greater coherence 
between policies with respect to international co-operation and will impact on the articulation 
of policies (already beginning to be demonstrated  with the implementation of the Joint Africa-
EU Strategic Partnership and the opportunities for associati on to the Framework Programme 
of European Neighbourhood Partnership (ENP) c ountries). Russia is al ready an important 
research partner for the EU and this EU-Ru ssia S&T cooperation could be further enhanced. 
Nevertheless the development of this research ties needs to be seen in the wider context of 
EU-Russia relations. The Framework Programme could develop in the Capacities Programme 
specific competence building acti ons targeting the ENP countri es that are complementary 
with the ENPI (European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument) activities. 
In 2005, the EU undertook to ensure  that all community policies assist Developing Countries 
achieve the Millennium Development Goals52. In December 2007, a new EU Africa Strategic 
Partnership was agreed, which in cluded science as a priority and provides a long-term vision 
for the benefit of the people of Africa and Eur ope. It has as an objective to bridge the 
scientific divide, to strengthen African S&T capacities an d enhance the role of S&T as key 
enablers for poverty reduction, growth  and socio-economic development.  
This Partnership is the foundation of the new approach to S&T co-operation with Africa and 
offers an opportunity to build up a new s ynergy between the EU Science, Technology, 
Innovation and Development policies and instruments.  
The Framework Programme should contribute to  the implementation of the Partnership in 
close cooperation with the Development Progra mmes of the EC, which should help increase 
the research capacities of the African countries and the joint initiatives of the EU Member 
States. Nineteen "lighthouse projects" were rece ntly approved out of which six are considered 
as "early deliverables" and will be implemented at short term. Their main aim is to enhance African R&D activities in some se lected key sectors such as wa ter and food secu rity at river 
basin scale and to promote scient ific excellence through grants o ffered to African researchers. 
3.6. Optimising Finance Oppo rtunities: The Risk Sharing Financial Facility 
The Risk Sharing Financial Facility (RSFF) repr esents the result of a joint vision and common 
effort of the European Commission and the European Investment Bank to develop new 
financial instruments for the knowledge econom y. The RSFF is a risk-b earing instrument by 
which the EIB covers, through capital allocati ons and provisions, the risks it bears when 
lending directly or when guaranteeing loans made by intermediaries. Up to € 1 billion will be 
                                                
 
52 European Commission 2005): Communication on "Po licy Coherence for Deve lopment - Accelerating 
progress towards attaining the Millennium Development Goals", COM(2005)134. Brussels.  
General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC) Conclusions on the Millennium Development Goals (Doc. 9266/05).  
Joint Statement by the Council and the representatives of the governments of the Member States 
meeting within the Council, the European Parliament and the European Commission on European Union Development Policy: "The European Consensus" (OJ 2006/C 46/01). 
EN 58   EN made available from each institution for RSFF over 2007-2013, allowing the fund to make 
available financing in the order of € 10 billion for investments in research, development and innovation. RSFF is managed by the Eu ropean Investment Bank (EIB). 
The RSFF targets European research-intensi ve entities including SMEs and research 
infrastructures, irrespective of  size and ownership, which contri bute to the objectives of FP7. 
The financing may be provided either to entities active in the field of research and innovation 
or to individual research-related proj ects, often at a demonstration stage. 
Smaller companies and projec ts involved in research, de velopment and innovation may 
benefit via the intermediation of financial inst itutions with which the EIB has established, or 
will enter into, risk-sharing agreements. 
The RSFF Co-operation Agreement between the European Community and the European 
Investment Bank was signed on 5 June 2007 and entered into force on signing. 
Over 30 seminars, workshops and meetings, a nd 17 conferences were organised with the 
stakeholders of FP7 and with potential RSFF borrowers in 2007. 
A network of RSFF liaison officers has been es tablished that is re gularly updated on RSFF 
progress. RSFF team continues to present R SFF to colleagues from DG RTD and other DGs 
of the research family, either in the form of dedicated presentations or within the framework of FP7 training sessions.  
Since its launch in June 2007, the EIB Board has approved 30 RSFF operations. The volume 
of signed loans has reached the EUR 2 billion mark at the beginning of 2009. The main 
beneficiaries of RSFF loans have , so far, been mid-cap and la rger companies as well as 
dedicated companies implementing one particul ar demonstration proj ect. The geographical 
coverage of the RSFF includes already loan opera tions in 14 European countries and will be 
further extended during the year 2009.  
The RSFF has also provided loan finance to comp anies in different sect ors, particularly in 
Energy, ICT, Life Sciences and Engineering/ industry including auto motive companies with 
important environmental benefits in the contex t of their RDI investments. Over 10% of the 
current RSFF portfolio of the EIB is devoted to risk-sharing loan  arrangements with financial 
intermediaries in order to make RSFF finance available to SMEs in need of smaller loan amounts. 
The RSFF can also suppor t the implementation of Research Infrastructu re projects, notably 
those of European interest which have been included in the ESFRI list. For one important 
ESFRI project, the EIB has already received the EC's approval to provide an RSFF loan of up 
to EUR 100 million if requested  by the project promoters. 
EN 59   EN 4. BETTER MANAGEMENT THROUGH SIMPLIFICATION  
After the first years of the FP7, the proposers an d the Commission servic es find themselves in 
a different and better envir onment of everyday administrative reality in relation to the 
previous FPs. They can avail themselves of ma ny new concrete tools of various kinds that 
simplify the procedure of the disbursement of  the Community funding and they can see new 
structures in place that will take up major parts of the actual FP implementation.  
And yet, at the same time as these improvements set in, it becomes more apparent that things 
can not get much better as long as there is no change in th e legislative environment.  
4.1. Concrete Achievements  
Achievements in terms of rationalising and simplifying programme management are making 
research money go further than it has done before.  
The reinforced research evaluation facility establ ished in 2006 is capable  of hosting more than 
500 evaluators on site with furt her remote and video-conferenci ng facilities. It has already 
evaluated tens of thousands of proposal s received through a new Electronic Proposal 
Submission Service (EPSS) and managed hundreds of calls.  
The time and effort needed to deal with fina ncial and administrative requirements has been 
reduced through simplification of FP7 and th rough externalisation a nd specialisation in 
management tasks. The funding models have been rationalised and the EU co-funding rate 
has been increased from 50 % of total project cost to 75% for public research organisations 
and SMEs. The introduction of a guarantee fund has made ex-a nte controls of financial 
capacity of participants obsolet e, helping SMEs and smaller or ganisations to participate. 
Forms and procedures have been rationalize d, guidance has been cl arified, reporting 
requirements have been reduced by 25% and practical measures such as the Unique 
Registration Facility are re ducing time to contract.  
The simplification achieved in the 7th Framework Programme will in itself lead to fewer 
errors in financial reporting over th e next few years. In fact as it is already the case for FP6, a 
12 fold increase in ex-post audits of existing c ontracts in the last 2 years has increased the 
assurance that errors in legality and regular ity are identified and corrected. Where there are 
systematic errors the correction will be extr apolated to other contracts. Depending on the 
effectiveness of the extrapolation stage, it rema ins feasible to bring down the level of error 
over the life of the programme below th e current level of approximately 2.5%. 
Accomplishments that have been brought about so  far are described in more detail below. 
Many of them have been indicated and sketch ed already back in 2005 in the Commission 
Staff Working Document "Simplification in the 7th Framework Programme" (SEC(2005) 
431), which was presented together with the Commission's proposals for FP7. In particular, 
important progress was made with regard to the following objectives: 
• Consistent, high quality communication through the ameliorations on project reporting and 
on streamlining and harmonisation of documentation. 
• Rationalisation of the requests for informati on addressed to participants through the 
possibility of the unique regist ration of legal entities, the improvements on grant agreement 
negotiation and on project report ing. Moreover, the Participant Portal that is currently 
EN 60   EN under development will further reinforce the systematic use of electronic tools for all 
interactions with participants related to  proposal and grant management, providing a 
unique user interface. 
• Guaranteeing the protection of the Community 's financial interest without imposing an 
undue burden on participants by reducing a-priori  controls to the bare minimum through 
the certification of costs and fewer ex-ante capacity checks. 
• Full operational autonomy entrusted to consorti a through the novelties on  project reporting. 
• Initial steps towards flat-rate financing with in a simplified framework of forms taken by 
Community financial contribu tions through the introduction of  the use of a lump sum 
approach for subsistence and accommodation costs. However, some DGs have opted for not applying such schemes to grant beneficiaries. 
Other goals, like removing the need for comple x cost reporting models, clarifying definition 
of eligible costs and simplifyi ng support rates per type of ac tivity were reached with the 
adoption of the FP7 Rules for Participation and dissemination, whereas further progress on 
streamlining the selection process was held back due to lack of legislative decision, despite 
the Commission's proposals.  
4.1.1.  A Series of Important Steps Forward 
Accomplishments (already attained or well afte r their starting phase) include the following:  
(1) Fewer audit certificates - Certification of costs: 
The number of audit certificates (certificates on financial statem ents) is substantially reduced 
in FP7 compared to FP6: only beneficiaries receiving more than € 375 000 will have to provide a certificate; (in FP6, ev ery beneficiary had to submit at least one audit certificate at 
the end of the project no matter what the amount involved). A simulation based on the 
population of FP6 contracts sh ows that only 18% of the participations receive EC 
contributions above € 375 000. Assuming a simila r distribution of funding in FP7, this would 
mean that for 82% of FP7 participations no cer tificates would be necessary – a reduction of 
the number of certificates by a factor of ten compared to FP6. 
(2) Fewer ex-ante financial capacity checks and protective measures: 
The introduction of the guarantee fund in FP7 allowed the abolition of ex-ante financial 
viability checks for the majority of participants. These checks are now only necessary for coordinators and participants requesting mo re than € 500 000 EC contribution. In FP6, only 
11% of the participations rece ived more than € 500 000 EC contribution. Assuming a similar 
distribution of funding in FP7, this  would mean that ni ne out of ten participants in FP7 would 
be exempt from any ex-ante financial capacity check. 
In addition, bank guarantees, blocked accounts, re duced pre-financing or other measures of 
financial protection are no longe r requested by the Commission.  
Both the increase of the thre shold and the abandonment of protective measures simplify 
participation in particular for SMEs and start-ups. 
EN 61   EN (3) Unique registration of participating legal entities: 
Repeated requests for the same documents on the existence and legal stat us of participants 
were a major cause of complaints in previous  framework programmes. Since the start of FP7, 
the principle of unique registration is intr oduced. A central validation team operates since 
mid-2007. Legal documents have to be provided only once and validation by the central team 
holds for all future participations in FP 7. The second phase of this project was the 
introduction of the Unique Registration Faci lity (URF), a Web-based system where the 
participants themselves can access and change their legal data online. This system, common 
to all research DGs, is in  operation since the beginni ng of May 2008. More than 11000 
entities are already registered. The unique identifier (Participa nt Identification Code – PIC) 
given to each legal entity will  provide for several improvement s in the future FP7 grant and 
programme management: 
• It avoids repeated introduction of the same  data in different systems and provides easy 
traceability of participations th rough the complete project lifetim e and in all IT systems. It 
improves thus the quality and cohere nce of statistics and reporting. 
• It allows an easy propagation of changes to the legal entity data to all systems and parties 
concerned in all grants in whic h an organisation participates. 
• It provides for a more coherent implemen tation and extrapolation of audit results. 
• It gives each organisation the possibility of eas y monitoring of their participations in FP7 
(via the Legal Entity Appointed Representati ve – LEAR, who will have online access to 
the list of participation of his organisation). 
(4) Quicker grant agreement negotiation: 
A new Web-based electronic system for negotiation, used by all research DGs, was 
introduced by the end of 2007. The system allows online interaction between participants and 
Commission project officers. Si nce May 2008 it is linked to th e unique registration facility, 
providing for seamless data ex change on legal entities. 
(5) Easier project reporting: 
Several elements of simplification are being introduced in the processes and rules for 
intermediate and final scientific and financial reporting in FP7 projects: 
• The reporting guidelines and the structure of reports were consider ably streamlined.  
• We strive for an extension of average repor ting and payment periods from 12 months (in 
FP6) to 18 months. This could reduce the overall number of reports and payment 
transactions by 17% (estimation based on simula tions of the FP6 portfol io), thus reducing 
the workload both for the particip ants and the Commission services. 
• The amount of data colle cted in reports is considerably reduced. Detailed questionnaires on 
wider societal implications will no longer be required with each intermediate report but 
only once (in the final report). 
• A Web-based electronic system for collecting financial reports ("forms C") is online since 
December 2008. The system is linked to the uni que registration facility and to the grant 
management system and presents pre-filled fo rms with automatic checks and calculations 
EN 62   EN for coordinators, simplifying thus financial re porting and reducing er ror rates. A similar 
system is in preparation for the scientific reporting that will simplify interactions between participants and the Commission and will provid e better possibilities for the dissemination 
of project results. 
(6) Faster conclusion of amendments: 
Amendments to ongoing contract s/grant agreements represent a considerable administrative 
workload both for participants and the Co mmission. The FP7 amendment guidelines were 
therefore prepared with the ai m of identifying all possibilities for simplifying rules and 
procedures. The main result is that in FP7 th e coordinator can not on ly request amendments 
on behalf of the other beneficiaries (as in FP6 ) but can also accept them  on behalf of them. 
Also, some changes (such as changes in the addr ess or legal name of th e beneficiary) in on-
going grants will not require a formal amendment in each of th e grant agreements where the 
beneficiary participates but ju st the sending of one informati on letter to the legal entity. 
Important simplifications in the amendmen t processes will be enabled by the unique 
registration facility. Changes to the status of a legal entity are now automatically propagated 
to all grants concerned in all Directorates  General of the Commission involved in the 
implementation of FP7 ("the rese arch DGs") and to the respectiv e participant, coordinators 
and project officers. 
(7) Streamlining and harmonisation of documentation: 
Documentation and guidance notes  on the various aspects of FP7 implementation are clearer 
and simpler and adapted jointly by the resear ch DGs, preceded by consultation of external 
stakeholders, as e.g. via comments received direc tly from beneficiaries in the inquiry service 
(helpdesk), via the network of legal and fi nancial national contac t points and the sounding 
board of smaller research actors. 
(8) Use of a lump sum approach for a ccommodation and subsistence costs: 
As one step towards extended use of lump su ms and flat rates in FP7 funding, a Commission 
decision is under preparation, providing the opti on for participants to use a lump sum for 
charging travel and subsisten ce costs for missions in projects. This option should be 
introduced with the 201 0 work programmes.  
(9) Audit certificates: 
The certification policy for the FP7 Grant Agreem ents was designed with the aim to correct 
the deficiencies in the imputa tion of costs noticed under the previous research Framework 
Programmes. Experience with past Framewor k Programmes has indeed evidenced that the 
main sources of errors in the costs claimed by beneficiaries relate to  the personnel costs and 
indirect costs, often calcula ted according to a methodology wh ich does not conform to the 
grant agreement provisions. The objective of the FP7 certification on the methodology is to 
promote the use of correct methodologies by be neficiaries when calculating personnel costs 
and indirect costs, in particul ar in those cases when average personnel costs are claimed. In 
addition to providing better assu rance for the sound financial ma nagement this new approach 
enables simplification by reassuring certified beneficiaries that the methodology they use will 
not be contested in case of an audit if the methodology has been correctly applied, thus 
limiting the risk of being subject to recove ry orders. This approach stems from the 
strengthened importance attached  to accountability in the frame of EU research  expenditure 
and the objective to prevent errors in cost clai ms submitted by FP7 beneficiaries (reduction of 
EN 63   EN the error rate). Hence the applicable rules fo r FP7 and those of FP6 differ considerably as 
regards average personnel costing methods. It sh ould be kept in mind that the new approach 
implies a number of challenges as detailed in section (10). 
The 7th Framework Programme introduced, in a ddition to the certificates on the financial 
statements which have to be submitted after the costs are being incurred and claimed, two 
new types of ex-ante certificates on the methodology: 
• The certificate on average personnel costs (CoMAv)  which is mandatory  for any 
beneficiary intending to charge personne l costs based on average personnel cost 
calculations.  
• The certificate on the methodol ogy for personnel and indirect  costs (CoM), optional for 
any  beneficiary of multiple grants fulfilli ng the eligibility criteria set by the Commission. 
While the CoMAv is required for any benefi ciary opting for declaring average personnel 
costs, the CoM is based on a voluntary choice. In 20 07, the Commission established 
eligibility criteria in order to limit the applicat ion of the CoM to those recurrent beneficiaries 
for whom the cost-benefit relation of this cer tificate would be favourable, judged on the 
number of 'historic' FP6 contract participati ons. Those criteria were completed at the end of 
November 2008 with thresholds related to FP7 grant agreement particip ations, in order to 
allow those recurrent FP7 beneficiaries, who we re not eligible under th e FP6-based eligibility 
criteria, such as certain beneficiaries from the new Member States, to become eligible.  
These certificates are based on "agreed upon procedures" established on the basis of 
international audit and accounti ng standards, in close co-ord ination with the competent 
European professional audit body53.  
It must be pointed out that while an accepted certification on the methodology does by no 
means bind the Commission to never again put into question costs claimed under FP7 grants, 
nor the beneficiary's underlying methodology, it is  aimed to give the beneficiaries and the 
Commission services reasonable assurance th at the methodology used for claiming personnel 
and indirect costs fulfils certain minimum requ irements of the FP7 grant, thereby avoiding 
that potential errors in the methodology impact in a later stage on payment's of FP7 funds 
which would require financial adju stments or recovery orders.  
Moreover, the certification on the methodology enables an impor tant degree of simplification 
in the FP7 grant management process: benefi ciaries receiving approval from the Commission 
on their certified methodology for bot h personnel and indirect cost s will not have to submit 
certificates on financial statements for interim payments. In addition, the final certificate on 
financial statements will be pr epared by the auditors by verify ing (for personnel and indirect 
costs) the compliance with the declared meth odology, thus adding simplif ication to the audit 
work performed. This should also contribute to the reduction of the cost of the certification 
process as a whole and in particular for be neficiaries participating in several grants 
agreements. The ideal target for the provision  of this kind of certi fication is typically 
beneficiaries of multiple grants which have an established methodology for calculating their 
rates. As the certification of the methodology is  intended to be valid throughout the whole 
FP7, it is clear that they will benefit from this exercise.  
                                                 
53 FEE – Fédération des Experts Comptables Européens 
EN 64   EN (10) Two challenges: Average personnel cost s and review of transi tional flat-rate of
 60% for indirect costs 
Average personnel costs: 
The Commission has the political commitment to deliver in FP7  concrete measures towards 
simplification of reporting and costing re quirements for beneficiaries. One major 
simplification intended by the FP7 rules for participation was the explicit acceptance of the use of average personnel costs as a commonly used accounting pr actice. Indeed the FP7 Rules 
for participation and dissemination provide that  average personnel costs may be used if they 
are consistent with the manage ment principles and accounting pr actices of the participant and 
do not differ significantly from actual costs . The FP7 grant agreement further details that 
beneficiaries may opt to declare average pers onnel costs if based on a certified methodology 
approved by the Commission and consistent w ith the management principles and usual 
accounting practices of the beneficiary. Aver age personnel costs charged by a beneficiary 
having provided a certificate on the methodology are deemed not to significantly differ from 
actual personnel costs.  
Neither the meaning of "significa nt deviation" nor the indicators  and criteria to be used to 
assess the average personnel costs methodologies ar e specified in the FP7 legal texts. It is 
therefore up to the Commission to establish th e criteria under which average personnel cost 
methodologies can be approved. 
Striving to balance the demands of simplificatio n and ensuring the legality and regularity of 
expenditure, the Commission services are occupied  with assessing several possibilities for the 
acceptability criteria of the average personne l rates methodologies in full knowledge of the 
fact that the decision on the implementation ru les of these costs will directly impact the 
Commission's time-to-pay track record under FP7. 
Review of transitional flat-r ate of 60% for indirect costs  
According to article 32.5
54 of the EC FP7 Rules for Participation and dissemination, the 
Commission is responsible for the review of the current 60 % transitional flat rate and must 
establish a new rate applicable for grants  awarded under calls closing after 31 December 
2009. The same article states that  the new flat rate should be an approximation of the real 
indirect costs concerned but  not lower than 40 %.  
The revision of the transitional flat rate is aime d to promote the shift of transitional flat rate 
beneficiaries (typically those who were using the additional cost model in previous FPs) 
towards actual cost methodologies, with a view  to encourage the modernisation and foster 
sustainability of the financial management of European public research entities. Even though 
                                                 
54 "Non-profit public bodies, secondary and higher education establishments, research organisations and 
SMEs which are unable to identify with certainty their real indirect costs for the action concerned, 
when participating in funding schemes which in clude research and tech nological development and 
demonstration activities, as referred to in Article 33, may opt for a flat rate equal to 60 % of the total 
direct eligible costs for grants awarded under calls for proposals closing before 1 January 2010.   
 
With a view to facilitating a transition to full application of the general principle established in 
paragraph 2, the Commission shall establish, for grants awarded under calls closing after 31 December 2009, an appropriate level of flat rate which should be an appr oximation of the real indirect 
costs concerned but not lower than 40 %. This will be based on an evaluation of participation by non-
profit public bodies, secondary and higher education establishments, research organisations and SMEs 
which are unable to identify with certainty their real indirect costs for the action concerned." 
EN 65   EN the perception of this re vision and its potential imp act at the level of th e stakeholders differs 
widely from one Member State/Associated Count ry to another, the final outcome of such 
revision is evidently a major concern for those beneficiaries currently participating in FP7 
under the transitional flat rate regime.  
Information was collected on this issue through  the network of Legal and Financial National 
Contact Points (NCPs). Despite th e fact that many of the concer ned beneficiaries, in certain 
cases supported by national initiatives, have launch ed initiatives for the modernisation of their 
accounting systems, few have at this stage eff ectively shifted to actual costs methodologies 
and only a limited number consider themselves  in a position to do so by 2010. Moreover the 
report of the expert group on 'Diversified funding streams for university-based research: 
impact of external project-based research funding on financial management in Universities' 
currently still in draft, leads to similar conclusions: Whilst th ere is a will at the level of 
European universities to move towards act ual costs in a cont ext of management 
modernisation, most entities will not be ready for such change by 2010. Therefore, although a reduction of the transitional flat rate woul d be recommended in order to "encourage" 
beneficiaries to advance in th e path of accounting modernisa tion, the expert group show 
concerns about the level of prepar ation of the universities to such  change. This opinion is also 
in line with the conclusions of th e European University Association
55 which pleaded for the 
60 % transitional rate to be maintained for the entirety of FP7.  
Finally, in parallel to these external consultation s, an analysis of data resulting from audits 
performed by the Commission was carried out, aimed to determine the average rate of indirect 
costs for those beneficiaries declaring actual costs.  The results of this analysis concluded that, 
on average, the actual indirect costs of the bene ficiaries audited (over FP6) was equivalent to 
66,65 % of the direct cost minus  subcontracting. Although the number of cases sampled for 
this analysis was limited and the profile of these beneficiaries does not necessarily match those who are eligible for the transitional flat rate, the results of this exercise suggest that the 
60 % flat rate is indeed in line with empirical data. 
On the basis of the above elements the Commi ssion decision on the new FP7 transitional flat 
rate will be made by the end of 2009.  
4.1.2.  Executive Agencies: New Structures Entrusted with the FP Implementation
  
Quite different in terms of magnitude of scope  from the achievements described above, two 
Executive Agencies have been set up by the Co mmission in late 2007 (the first ever to be 
engaged in an FP implementation): The Resear ch Executive Agency (REA) and the European 
Research Council Executive Agency (E RCEA), presented in section 3.3 above. 
By outsourcing the implementation of parts of the Framework Programme to these agencies, a 
more effective and efficient management is being pursued by clearly differentiating between 
the Commission's responsibilities for policy de velopment and monitoring and the agencies' 
responsibilities to implement the FP under th e policy guidance of th e Commission. It is 
expected that economies will result from this outsourcing and it will  enable the Commission 
to respond better to the challeng es of managing increasing budgets  with constant resources. 
The Commission's evaluation of both REA a nd ERCEA after the first three years of 
operation, including an assessment of economies yielded, will provide a valuable input for 
                                                 
55 "EUA Statement on FP7 Rules of Participation proposals for support rates and costs models", 30 March 
2006. 
EN 66   EN decisions on the design and management of its future research policy with due consideration 
being given to the budgetary constraints on the Commission's administrative budget. 
Although the first two and a half years of FP7 have seen extensive efforts by the Commission 
services to establish outsourcing as a mean s for implementing the FP and progress in 
establishing the two research executive agencies has been more rapid than in previous cases, 
the creation of an agency during the implem entation of FP7 has not proved ideal due to 
transition problems. Outsourcing would be more e ffectively implemented if the administrative 
processes involved were concluded before the oper ational processes are pl anned to take place. 
In short, if further outsourcing is foreseen for future FPs, then ideally such outsourcing should 
be in place before the new FP begins, with the outsourcing stru ctures foreseen being approved 
at the same time as the FP is approved. 
The Executive Agencies are facing a major ch allenge with respect to their forthcoming 
autonomy (i.e. effective assumption of responsib ility) in mid-2009 for the management of the 
programmes falling under their mandate. They will ha ve to demonstrate that they can provide 
for an efficient management of the project life cycle for the various grants managed under 
their control while delivering on  the anticipated benefits in terms of cost savings to the 
Community budget. An important di mension of this challenge rela tes to the setting up of an 
effective collaboration between  the Commission (as superv isory body) and the Executive 
Agencies to make these outsourcing arrangeme nts effective tools for FP7 implementation 
under the political steer of the Commission. 
4.1.2.1.  The Research Executive Agency (REA) 
The REA was set up by Commission Decision 2008/46/EC on 14 December 2007 with a view 
to taking over the implementation of parts of the FP7 Specific Programmes "Cooperation" 
(themes on Space and Security), "Capacities" (t heme Research for the benefit of specific 
groups - Small and Medium sized Enterprises) and "People".  
It will also provide genera l FP7 support services on pr oposal reception/evaluation, 
management of contracts with expert proposal ev aluators and legal and financial validation of 
participants.  
The mix of activities to be managed by the REA, ranging from  high volume - low complexity 
- small value grants for Marie Curie individual fellowships to complex multi-partner grants for projects for Space & Security, makes this experiment a very valuable tool for the 
Commission to test the feasibility fo r outsourcing on a larger scale.  
The major challenge of the REA with respect to its forthcoming autonomy (see above) is 
underpinned by the fact that duri ng the transition period Commissi on staff with responsibility 
for the management of these programmes/services  are faced with decreasing staff levels (as 
services are phased out) and have to set up co llaboration arrangements with REA staff to 
maintain continuity of service and to arrange  for on-the-job training of REA staff and an 
orderly handover. 
The REA will have an important role in managing a single face towards the research 
community in respect of proposal reception, ev aluation and expert handling. It will work 
closely together with the Commission's resear ch DGs in implementing a single IT platform 
(the participant portal) to serve FP7 participants, thereby overcoming previously existing variants implemented by the different Commissi on services. This ambitious target will be 
implemented through a modular approach where beneficiaries will benefit from a gradually 
EN 67   EN improving service. Senior staff and the first 200  of the planned 550 sta ff have been recruited 
in 2008. 
4.1.2.2.  The European Research Council Executive Agency 
The European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA) was set up by Commission 
Decision 2008/37/EC of 14 December 2007 to manage  the "Ideas" Specific Programme of the 
FP7 as part of the ERC56. A point of significance is that th e governance of the ERC involves a 
Scientific Council bringing together representati ves of the scie ntific community  (see also 
section 3.3). The ERCEA's staff was increased in 2008 through recruitment, anticipating the 
increase in the budget of the "Ideas" Speci fic Programme. By the end of 2008 75 of the 
planned 389 members of staff were recruited. 
Like REA, the ERCEA will be responsible for a nu mber of activities which are either directly 
related or ancillary to the implementation of  its programme. Because of the ERC's mandate 
and the Scientific Council's unique role in th e governance of the ERC, the ERCEA will also 
have to perform additional tasks like supporting the Scientific Council and implementing the ERC's communication strategy. 
4.2. Challenges: The Need to Reach an Agreement on the Balance between Trust and 
Risk in Research Funding 
Framework Programmes have been supporting colla borative research in  Europe for around a 
quarter of a century with significant impacts on the competitiveness of European industry, on the knowledge and skills of Europe's resear ch teams and on partnership building across 
Europe. However, the simplification of their di sbursement procedures remains a challenge.  
While it is true that further simplification could be brought about by streamlining some 
administrative processes between Commission depa rtments, a paradigm change is needed in 
the regulatory environment to make a true and lasting breakthrough. There is an apparent and 
pressing need to agree, inside and outside th e Commission, with all impor tant actors (Court of 
Auditors, the European Parliament, the Council),  where the balance will have to lie between 
risk exposure fought against with extensive audi ting on one side and trust and freedom 
allowing a number of errors on the other
57. 
A Commission Communication on simplification is planned for 2010, which would be the 
occasion for reflecting on these issues and fo r taking account of the ongoing dialogue with the 
Legislative Authority and the Court of Auditors in respect of the concept of the tolerable risk of error
58.  
The change of the le gal framework is a sine qua non  for further simplification. Significant 
changes to the legal framework would be in line with comment s from the Court of Auditors 
which has recommended in its "Annual re port on the 2007 EU budge t" that project 
                                                 
56 Commission Decision No 2008/37/EC of 14 December 2007 setting up the European Research Council 
Executive Agency for the manageme nt of the specific Community prog ramme 'Ideas' in the field of 
frontier research in application of Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 (OJ L 9, p.15). 
57 The reflections of the High Level Group of Independent Stakeholders on Administrative Burdens, chaired by Edmund Stoiber, could offer one of the platforms where agreement could be based (see: 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/regulation/be tter_regulation/high_lev el_group_is_en_version.htm ). 
58 Following Communication (COM(2008)866 of 16.12.2008, "Towards a common understanding of the 
concept of tolerable risk of error" 
EN 68   EN management takes on "further simplification and clarification of the rules for the calculation 
and reporting of costs by beneficiaries, where po ssible introducing a resu lts-based, rather than 
input-based, financing system" and would be in  line with the Court' s opinion 1/2006 on the 
FP7 proposal where it expresses its view that "Rules for Participation should reflect the 
assumption that researchers participating in the European RTD framework programmes can 
be trusted to put public money to its best use, provided this remains within the limits 
established by the legal base to ensure eff ective and adequate control by the Commission". 
On this subject, the European Research A dvisory Board (ERAB) opined on February 19, 
2009 (see also Annex): 
"To improve efficiency, increase speed and reduce transaction costs, trust is a crucial 
element. However, the current institutional syst em seems caught in itself, paralysed by the 
political necessity to avoid mistakes rather th an managing risks. Economically speaking, the 
associated transaction costs have grown completely out of proportion, with marginal costs of controls, checks & balances exceeding their marginal benefits."  
"Use should therefore be made of forthcom ing opportunities to revi se this Financial 
Regulation and create a partial exemption fo r research and innovation, to account for a 
certain degree of risk that is inherent to th ese activities. […][T]he European Parliament and 
the Council [should] enable a risk-tolerant and tr ust-based approach in research funding, as 
well as real public-private research partnerships."  
If they are to bear fruits for the benefit of th e participants in EU research, any such changes 
must be made before the next  Framework Programme starts. 
EN 69   EN ANNEX 1:  
GLOSSARY  
AAL –  Ambient Assisted Living (Art. 169 Initiative) 
ARTEMIS –  Embedded Computing Systems Joint Technology Initiative 
BSGM/MC –  Research for the benefit of Specific Groups and Marie Curie  Actions  
CEWS –  Continental Early Warning System 
CFSP –  Common Foreign and Security Policy 
CIP –  Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme 
Clean Sky –  Aeronautics and Air Transpor t Joint Technology Initiative 
CoM –  Certificate on the methodology fo r personnel and indirect costs 
CoMAv –  Certificate on average personnel costs 
CP/CP-CSA –  Combination of Collaborative Pr oject & Coordination and Support 
Action 
CREST –  Scientific and Technical Research Committee 
CRPs –  Co-operative Research Processes 
CSA –  Coordination and Support Action 
CSO –  Civil Society Organisation 
CWGs –  Collaborative Working Groups 
DIS –  Dedicated Implementation Structures 
EDCPT –  European and Developing Countries  Clinical Trials Partnership 
EEI –  European Industrial Initiatives  
EERA –  European Energy Research Alliance 
EG –  -Expert Group 
EIT  –  European Institute of Innovation and Technology 
EIB –  European Investment Bank 
EMRP –  European Meteorology Research Programme 
ENIAC –  Nanoeletronics Technologies 2020 Joint Technology Initiative 
ENP –  European Neighbourhood Partnership 
EN 70   EN EPSS –  Electronic Proposal Submission System 
ERA –  European Research Area 
ERAWATCH –  Research Inventory 
ERAB –  European Research Area Board 
ERC –  European Research Council 
ERCEA –  European Research Council Executive Agency 
ESFRI –  European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures 
ESR –  Evaluation Summary Report 
ETP –  European Technology Platform 
EURAB –  European Advisory Board 
FCH –  Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Joint Technology Initiative 
FET –  Future and Emerging Technologies 
FP6 –  Sixth Framework Programme 
FP7 –  Seventh Framework Programme 
GEOSS –  Global Earth Observation System of Systems 
GIF –  Generation IV International Forum 
HES –  Higher or Secondary Education Organisation 
IAPP –  Marie Curie Industry-Academia Pathways and Partnerships 
ICT –  Innovation & Communication Technology 
IHMBC –  International Human Microbiome Consortium 
IMI –  Innovative Initiative Medicines Joint Technology Initiative 
IRSES –  Marie Curie International Research Staff Exchange Scheme  
JAC –  Joint-Assessment Committee 
JRC –  Joint Research Centre 
KKBB –  European Knowledge Based Bio-Economy 
KBBE-NET –  Knowledge Based Bio-Economy Network 
JTI –  Joint Technology Initiative 
EN 71   EN KIC –  Knowledge and Innovation Community 
LEAR –  Legal Entity Appointed Representative  
N&N –  Nanotechnologies and Nanosciences  
NCP –  National Contact Point 
NIH –  National Institutes of Health (US) 
NoE –  Network of Excellence 
OMC –  Open Method of Coordination 
OTH –  Other 
PRC –  Private for Profit Organisa tion (excluding Education) 
PSP –  ICT Technologies Policy Support Programme 
PUB –  Public Body (excluding Research and Education)  
RDI –  Research Development Innovation 
REA –  Research Executive Agency  
REC –  Research Organisation 
RIC –  Research International Cooperation 
RO –  -Redress Office 
ROs –  Research Organisations 
RSFF –  Risk Sharing Financial Facilities 
SAFMAMS –  Scientific Advice for Marine  Environmental Management 
SCAR –  Standing Committee on Agri cultural Research 
ScC –  Independent Scientific Council 
SDS –  Sustainable Development Strategy 
SET –  Strategy Energy Technology 
SETIS –  European Energy Technology Information System 
SF –  Structural Funds 
SICAs –  Specific International Coordination Actions 
SiS –  Science in Society 
EN 72   EN SRA –  Strategic Research Agenda 
SSH –  Socio-economic Sciences and Humanities 
URF –  Unique Registration Facility 
VPH –  Virtual Psychological Human Initiative  
WFD –  Water Framework Directive  
WGCM –  Working Group on Certifi cation of Methodology 
 
EN 73   EN ANNEX 2:  
ERAB VIEWS ON THE CONTRIBUTION OF FP7 INSTRUMENTS TO THE 
ESTABLISHMENT OF A GENUINE EUROPEAN RESEARCH AREA  
 
EN 74   EN 
 
EN 75   EN