2009
‘NETWORKS OF EXCELLENCE ’ 
AND ‘ INTEGRATED PROJECTS ’ 
IN COMMUNITY RESEARCH POLICY: DID THEY ACHIEVE THEIR OBJECTIVES?EUROPEAN COURT 
OF AUDITORS
Special Report  No 8
EN
ISSN 1831-0834

‘NETWORKS OF EXCELLENCE’ 
AND ‘INTEGRATED PROJECTS’ IN COMMUNITY RESEARCH POLICY: DID THEY ACHIEVE THEIR OBJECTIVES?Special Report  No 8  2009
EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS(pursuant to Article 248(4), second subparagraph, EC)
Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve th eir objectives?2
EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS
12, rue Alcide De Gasperi
1615 Luxembourg
LUXEMBOURG
Tel. +352 4398-45410
Fax +352 4398-46410
E-mail: euraud@eca.europa.eu
Internet: http://www.eca.europa.eu
Special Report  No 8  2009
More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).
Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2009ISBN 978-92-9207-408-1doi:10.2865/63596
© European Communities, 2009
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Printed in Belgium
Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve th eir objectives?3
CONTENTS
Paragraph
 GLOSSARY
I–V EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1–16  INTRODUCTION
1–5  OBJECTIVES AND THREATS FACING COMMUNITY RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT (RTD)
1–3 POLICY OBJECTIVES
4–5 STRUCTURAL WEAKNESSES AND AMBITIONS OF EUROPEAN RESEARCH
6–16  THE SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME
9–11 THE NEW INSTRUMENTS AND THEIR OBJECTIVES
12–16 PROJECT SELECTION AND MANAGEMENT
17–18  AUDIT SCOPE AND APPROACH
17 AUDIT SCOPE
18 AUDIT APPROACH
19–56  AUDIT OBSERVATIONS
19–27  CONTRIBUTION TO COMMUNITY RTD OBJECTIVES IN GENERAL
22–24 EFFECTIVE RESEARCH COLLABORATION
25–27 PROJECT PLANS BETTER THAN IMPLEMENTED PROJECTS IN A NUMBER OF CASES
28–43  ACHIEVEMENT OF THE NEW INSTRUMENTS’ SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES
29–35 NoEs’ INTEGRATION OFTEN REPLACED BY TRADITIONAL FORM OF COLLABORATION36–38 IPS: LARGE PROJECTS, AND RELATIVELY LOW PARTICIPANTS’ FINANCIAL INVOLVEMENT
39–43 SME PARTICIPATION TARGET NOT FULLY ACHIEVED
44–53  THE COMMISSION’S MANAGEMENT OF NEW INSTRUMENTS
45–46 UNCERTAINTIES ABOUT THE INSTRUMENTS’ SPECIFIC ROLE
47–49 MULTIPLE LEGAL PROVISIONS AND NOT ALWAYS SUFFICIENT GUIDANCE
50 THE NEGOTIATION PROCESS: MORE LENGTHY AND OFTEN NOT TRANSPARENT51 FEWER AND LARGER PROJECTS BUT STILL A LARGE NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS
52–53 WEAKNESSES IN PROJECT MONITORING
54–56  STIMULATION OF RTD INVESTMENT
55–56 MORE EU FUNDS FOR RELATIVELY LESS PARTICIPANTS’ RTD INVESTMENT
57–65  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 REPLY OF THE COMMISSION
Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve th eir objectives?4
Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve th eir objectives?5
GLOSSARY
European Research Area (ERA) : A border-free zone for research, in which scientific resources 
will be better deployed to create more jobs and to improve Europe’s competitiveness.
RTD Framework Programmes (FPs) : Multiannual programmes establishing, for a given 
period, the scientific and technological activities to be funded by the Community, their budget and the detailed rules for their technical and financial implementation.
RTD Instruments : Different types of projects defined by the FPs. Each instrument addresses 
specific objectives and involves particular participation arrangements.
Networks of Excellence (NoE) : Instrument aimed at creating substantial and lasting integra-
tion of the research activities of the network partners, thus directly tackling the fragmenta-tion of research activities in Europe in a given area.
Integrated Projects (IPs) : Instrument designed to achieve ambitious, clearly defined sci-
entific and technological objectives of a European dimension.
Gross domestic product (GDP) : The total market value of all final goods and services pro-
duced in a country in a given year.
Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) : Enterprises which employ fewer than 250 per-
sons and which have an annual turnover not exceeding 50 million euro, and/or an annual balance sheet total not exceeding 43 million euro.
SMART objectives : Specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and timed objectives, as 
defined by the EU Financial Regulation.
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve th eir objectives?6
EXECUTIVE 
SUMMARY
I.
European research is held to suffer from  
insufficient and dispersed investment. As  
part of the EU actions to remedy this, the  
Sixth Framework Programme (FP6) intro-
duced two new instruments, ‘Networks of  
Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’. The aim was, on one side, to create a substantial and 
lasting integration of the research activities 
and, on the other side, to achieve ambitious, 
clearly defined scientific and technological objectives of a European dimension.
II.
The audit examined to what extent ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ had contributed to achieve the research policy objectives set by the Treaty as well as their 
own specific objectives, the Commission had effectively managed the new instruments  
and FP6 had stimulated RTD investment.
III.
The Court concluded that:
The FP6 instruments audited were  (i) 
successful in promoting research col-
laboration and projects of reasonable  
quality. However these instruments have 
operated in the absence of an explicit  
intervention logic, as well as of SMART objectives and performance indicators.
The specific objectives of the new instru- (ii) 
ments were only partially achieved. ‘Net-
works of Excellence’ promoted a good  level of research collaboration, but often 
did not achieve a progressive and self-sustainable integration of the research activities between the network partners. ‘Integrated Projects’ promoted high-quality research collaboration, but did  
not attract more resources from individ-ual participants nor additional sources  
of public and private financing.
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve th eir objectives?7
V.
The Court also recommends that:
The Commission should consider whether (i) 
NoEs and IP-like collaborative projects  
have realistic objectives and provide sig-
nificant advantages as compared with  traditional instruments for research col-
laboration. Concerning NoEs financed  
under FP6, the Commission should  
assess on a case-by-case basis whether past achievements, potential EU added value and prospects of self-sustainability 
justify further funding under FP7.
The Commission should examine the  (ii) 
various reasons underlying the relatively low level of participants’ RTD investment compared to the goals pursued and pro-pose specific measures. Appropriate data should be made available to monitor the catalytic effect of EU RTD funding. The realism of expected targets, in particular for SMEs and the private sector, should be reassessed.
In view of improving in particular the  (iii) 
manageability of projects, their adequate 
implementation and appropriate evalu-
ation, the Commission should ensure  
clear and timely guidance, a speedier  contracting process and better project  
monitoring.EXECUTIVE 
SUMMARY
The Commission’s management revealed (iii) 
a number of weaknesses, in particular at 
the beginning of the implementation of 
FP6, which affected the effectiveness of 
the actions, in particular the uncertainty 
about the new instruments’ specific role, an insufficient guidance and weaknesses 
in project monitoring.
As compared to FP5, FP6 did not succeed (iv) 
in generating a significant increase in  terms of participants’ RTD investment.  The participation of the private sector  even diminished in relative terms. The  target of 15 % of the total budget of FP6 thematic priorities for SME participation was not achieved.
IV.
The Court recalls its previous recommenda-tion that spending programmes should be  based upon an explicit intervention logic,  linking the instruments to realistic objec-tives. In this context, the possibility of set-ting one single objective for each instrument should be considered in order to ensure clar-
ity of the instruments’ specific role. For each 
programme there should be appropriate per-
formance indicators to monitor the expected 
outputs, outcomes and impacts.
Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve th eir objectives?8
INTRODUCTION
OBJECTIVES AND THREATS FACING COMMUNITY 
RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT (RTD)
POLICY OBJECTIVES
 1.  Research and technological development (RTD) has a key influence on 
scientific and technological progress and innovation. Research is an important priority for the European Union and its Member States so 
that the high living standards of its citizens can be maintained and improved.
 2.  The overall objectives of the European Community RTD policy1 are to 
strengthen the scientific and technological bases of Community indus-try and encourage it to become more competitive at international  level. Undertakings, research centres and universities are encouraged to cooperate with one another in high-quality RTD activities to exploit the internal market potential to the full.1 Treaty establishing the European 
Community, Title XVIII (Research 
and Technological Development), 
Articles 163 to 173. The activities are 
so defined:(a) implementation of research, 
technological development and 
demonstration programmes, by 
promoting cooperation with and 
between undertakings, research 
centres and universities;
(b) promotion of cooperation in the 
field of Community research, 
technological development and 
demonstration with third countries 
and international organisations;
(c) dissemination and optimisation 
of the results of activities in 
Community research, technological development and demonstration;
(d) stimulation of the training and 
mobility of researchers in the 
Community.
AVERAGE ANNUAL RTD EXPENDITURE FROM THE COMUNITY BUDGET (FP4 TO FP7)FIGURE 1
in million euro p.a.
FP4 — EU-12
(1995 to 1998)FP5 — EU-15
(1999 to 2002)FP6 — EU-15
(2003 to 2006)FP6 — EU-25
(2004 to 2006)FP7 — EU-27
(2007 to 2013)2 7613 4254 0614 4477 217
1 0002 0003 0004 0005 0006 0007 0008 000
0
Source : Legislative decisions for FP4 to FP7 (excludes Euratom).
Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve th eir objectives?9
 3.  Since 1984, European Community RTD activities have been implemented 
through multiannual Framework Programmes (FPs) which define, for 
a given period, the scientific and technological objectives, the broad lines of the activities, the overall budget and its breakdown by action, 
and the detailed rules for Community financial participation. Funding 
in successive EU Framework Programmes has increased over time.  
FPs are the largest single public source of research funding in the  
European Union, with an overall share between 4 % and 5 % of total 
public RTD funding.
STRUCTURAL WEAKNESSES AND AMBITIONS 
OF EUROPEAN RESEARCH
 4.  European research is widely held to suffer from structural weaknesses. 
The Commission has highlighted that2:
there is insufficient and dispersed investment in RTD; (a) 
insufficient human resources are devoted to research; (b) 
there is a limited capacity to translate scientific breakthroughs (c) 
into innovative and competitive products and services; and
research policies in Europe are fragmented. (d) 
 5.  The Commission and the European Council considered that realising 
an ‘European Research Area’ (ERA) is a key step to overcome these 
structural weaknesses3. The ERA would constitute an internal market 
for research and technology, as well as a space for a better coordi-
nation of national and regional research activities and policies. The European Council has set for the Union the ambitious goal ‘to become 
the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the 
world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better 
jobs and greater social cohesion’
4. In this perspective, the European 
research effort should be increased, with the aim of approaching  3 % of gross domestic product by 2010 (up from 1,9 % in 2000). Two 
thirds of this new investment should come from the private sector
5.2 See the Commission proposal 
for Council decisions concerning 
the specific programmes 
implementing the Sixth Framework Programme, COM(2002) 43 final of 
30.1. 2002, Section 5.1 ‘Need for 
Community intervention’, p. 71.
3 The creation of a European 
Research Area (ERA) was proposed 
by the European Commission 
in its communication ‘Towards 
a European Research Area’ of 
January 2000. The objective of 
creating ERA was endorsed by 
the EU shortly afterwards at the March 2000 Lisbon European 
Council.
4 See the Conclusions of the 
European Council of Lisbon, 
March 2000, point 5.
5 See the Conclusions of the 
European Council of Barcelona, 
March 2002, point 47.
Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve th eir objectives?10
THE SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME
 6.  The European Community Sixth Framework Programme (FP6)6 was an 
instrument intended to assist in achieving the ambitious objectives 
mentioned earlier. Its aim was to fund activities contributing both to 
innovation and to the creation of the ERA, by fostering more integra-
tion and coordination in Europe’s fragmented research sector. FP6 
covered, for the period 2002 to 2006, the full spectrum from basic to 
applied research, the development of scientific and technical excel-
lence and the coordination of European research. The programme  was structured around three headings:
integrating and strengthening the European Research Area; —
structuring the European Research Area; and —
strengthening the foundations of the European Research Area. —
FP6 MAIN COMPONENTS AND BASIC PRINCIPLESFIGURE 2
FP6 Main Components
Integrating
European ResearchStructuring
the European 
Research AreaStrengthening
the foundations 
of the ERA
FP6 Basic Principles
Concentrating
on selected priority 
research areasStructuring eff  ect
through stronger links 
with national, regional 
and other European 
initiativesCoordination
Simplifi  cation6 Decision No 1513/2002/EC of 
the European Parliament and 
of the Council of 27 June 2002 
concerning the sixth framework 
programme of the European 
Community for research, technological development 
and demonstration activities, 
contributing to the creation of 
the European Research Area and 
to innovation (2002 to 2006) 
(OJ L 232, 29.8.2002, p. 1).
Source :  Commission’s guide ‘Participating in European Research’, 2nd Edition, February 2004
(http://ec.europa.eu/research/fp6/pdf/how-to-participate_en.pdf).
Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve th eir objectives?11
 7.  With a budget of around 17 billion euro for the years 2002–06, FP6 
financed until the end of 2008 ‘indirect’ RTD activities worth 25 bil-
lion euro in estimated investments7. Most expenditure (around 75 %) 
was carried out under the heading ‘Integrating and strengthening  the European Research Area’, within seven ‘thematic priorities’
8, i.e. 
programmes covering specific themes of research.
 8.  In view of developing their technological capacity and facilitating their 
access to high-quality research, FP6 put special emphasis on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). An amount of 1,8 billion euro was earmarked for this purpose, i.e. 15 % of the total budget of the 
thematic priorities (one third more than in the previous Framework 
Programme).
THE NEW INSTRUMENTS AND THEIR OBJECTIVES
 9.  In addition to the traditional instruments9, two new instruments were 
introduced by FP6 aiming especially at ‘Integrating and strengthen-
ing the European Research Area’:
‘Networks of Excellence’ (NoEs) were aimed primarily at creating  —
a substantial and lasting integration of the research activities of 
the network partners, thus directly tackling the fragmentation of research activities in Europe in a given thematic priority.
‘Integrated Projects’ (IPs) were designed to generate the know- —
ledge required to implement the thematic priorities, by achieving 
ambitious, clearly defined scientific and technological objectives of a European dimension.
 10.  NoEs and IPs could be carried out in any of the seven ‘thematic priorities’ 
(see footnote 8). These instruments were recognised by the legislator 
as being the main means to generate added value over and above that which could be achieved through national efforts (European added 
value), by integrating European research capacities. This was sup-
posed to achieve a critical mass in terms of expertise, activities and 
resources (staff, skills, competences, finances, infrastructure, equip-
ment). Also the new instruments were supposed to play an important role in achieving the target of spending 15 % of the budget of the 
thematic priorities on SME (see paragraph 8).7 ‘Indirect’ RTD activities 
designate actions to be 
implemented by grant contractors, 
as opposed to ‘direct’ activities carried out by the Commission 
through its Joint Research Centre.
8 The seven ‘thematic priorities’ 
are: life sciences, genomics and biotechnology for health; 
information society technologies; 
nanotechnologies and 
nanosciences, knowledge-based 
multifunctional materials, and new 
production processes and devices; 
aeronautics and space; food quality and safety; sustainable 
development, global change 
and ecosystems; citizens and 
governance in a knowledge-based 
society.
9 Specific targeted projects, 
coordinated actions, specific 
support projects, Marie Curie 
actions, integrated infrastructure 
initiatives and Article 169 actions.
Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve th eir objectives?12
 11.  Boxes 1 and 2 provide examples of the type of activities carried out in 
‘NoEs’ and ‘IPs’.
PROJECT SELECTION AND MANAGEMENT
 12.  Within the Commission, FP6 is a joint responsibility of several Directo-
rates-General (DGs)10. As in previous Framework Programmes, the  
Commission published periodically calls for proposals describing the broad areas of activity. Request for funding submitted by potential beneficiaries were assessed with the help of independent experts  
(‘evaluators’). Proposals were evaluated against the scientific and  
technical criteria defined in the call for proposals, including manage-
ment criteria linked with the proposers’ potential capacity to imple-ment the projects. Projects considered most deserving of EU funding 
were selected by the Commission and grants awarded.
 13.  Project progress was monitored and periodically assessed by the Commis-
sion, including by reference to the objectives specifically assigned to 
each instrument. This monitoring was carried out with the assistance 
of independent experts (reviewers)11.10 Together with DG Research, 
which is the main Directorate-
General managing and 
coordinating FP6 activities, four other DGs also managed 
parts of specific programmes: 
DG Information Society and 
Media, DG Energy and Transport, 
DG Enterprise and Industry, DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries. 
In addition, the DG ‘Joint Research 
Centre’ is in charge of those 
activities which are directly 
implemented by the Commission.
11 See paragraph 25 and 
footnote 19.
WHAT SORT OF ACTIVITIES WERE CARRIED OUT IN NoEs?
Every NoE is different. Examples of the specific activities carried out include:
Integration of activities implemented under the NoEs examined included the exchange of PhD students 
and research staff, the organisation of joint workshops, the creation of virtual Internet-based research working groups, the establishment of virtual labs and institutes, and the organisation of visits intended to provide access to off-site facilities.
Joint research activities implemented under the NoEs examined include the funding of individual research 
projects, often through internal calls for proposals implemented under the responsibility of scientific 
task leaders.
Spreading of excellence activities included visits to industry, participation in international conferences, 
organisation of summer school sessions and other training events, the dissemination of project informa-
tion through a dedicated web page, newsletters, press releases, and the publication of articles.BOX 1
Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve th eir objectives?13
 14.  Projects undertaken under NoEs and IPs attracted almost 50 % of FP6 
funds. According to the Commission’s data under the Seventh Frame-
work Programme (2007–13) NoEs and those collaborative projects  that assume IP characteristics received 16 % of the total FP7 funding 
allocated up to February 2009.
12
 15.  FP6 financed 167 projects as NoEs, involving some 5 000 participants 
and a cumulative EU contribution of 1,2 billion euro (against eligible 
investment costs of 1,9 billion euro). On average, each NoE involved around 30 partners and an EU contribution of 7 million euro per con-tract. Almost 700 projects were financed as ‘IPs’. They involved some 
17 000 participants and a cumulative EU contribution of 6,5 billion 
euro (against eligible investment costs of 10,7 billion euro). On aver-
age, each IP involved around 25 partners and an EU contribution of 9,5 million euro per contract.
 16.  Overall, FP6 available funds permitted the financing of only one out of 
five proposals received. This ratio is similar to that of the US National 
Science Foundation funding schemes, but lower than that of the pre-vious Framework Programme (26 %). A higher proportion of ‘NoE’  
proposals were financed compared to ‘IP’ projects.12 Decision No 1982/2006/
EC of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 
18 December 2006 concerning the seventh framework programme 
of the European Community 
for research, technological 
development and demonstration 
activities, (2007 to 2013)(OJ L 412, 30.12.2006, p. 1). 
Under FP7, ‘Collaborative 
Projects’ may include the 
activities previously carried out 
by ‘Integrated Projects’.
WHAT SORT OF ACTIVITIES WERE CARRIED OUT IN IPs?
The activities covered by a project carried under IPs fall within one of the following categories:
research and technological development activities directly aimed at creating new knowledge, includ-• 
ing innovation-related and dissemination activities;demonstration activities designed to prove the viability of new technologies that offer a potential 
• 
economic advantage but which cannot be commercialised directly (e.g. testing of prototypes);
training activities intended to contribute to the professional development of researchers and other • 
key staff, research managers, industrial executives (in particular for SMEs), and potential users of 
the knowledge generated by the project.BOX 2
Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve th eir objectives?14
AUDIT SCOPE
 17.  The objectives of the audit were to assess to what extent:
Networks of Excellence and Integrated Projects contributed to   —
achieve the research policy objectives set by the Treaty as well 
as their own specific objectives.
The Commission effectively supported the projects’ implementa- —
tion, by providing the necessary guidance to beneficiaries, manag-ing the contracts and monitoring the progress achieved; and
FP6 had stimulated RTD investment. —
AUDIT APPROACH
 18.  Audit evidence was collected through:
Review of documentation on FP6 (preparatory documents, legal  —
framework and Commission guidance, implementation data).
Visits to 36 project coordinators and participants involved in   —
14 projects in 15 different Member States13.
A series of ‘round table’ discussions with 60 researchers from   —
44 different organisations participating in FP614.
A survey of 387 RTD organisations (274 programme participants,  —
104 proposers and nine non-participants).
An analysis of selected management areas playing a key role in  —
the performance of the instruments (including the review of the 
implementation of eight calls for proposals and an analysis of  
the conclusions of 399 independent project reviews conducted 
before 31 December 2007).
The review of secondary evidence on the effectiveness of the   —
instruments.
Consideration of the opinions expressed by some associations   —
active in Community research.13 Austria, Belgium, Denmark, 
Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, 
Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, 
Portugal, the Slovak Republic, 
Spain, Sweden and the United 
Kingdom.
14 Round tables were organised 
with the assistance of the 
FP6 National Contact Point 
coordinators in Finland, France, 
Poland, Spain and the United 
Kingdom.AUDIT SCOPE AND APPROACH
Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve th eir objectives?15
CONTRIBUTION TO COMMUNITY RTD OBJECTIVES 
IN GENERAL
 19.  According to the EC Treaty, Community RTD policy has the overall aim 
to strengthen the scientific and technological bases of Community 
industry and to encourage it to become more competitive at inter-
national level.
 20.  In the framework of a previous audit in the field of research, the Court 
pointed out the lack of an explicit intervention logic, explaining how the different instruments and programmes were supposed to con-tribute to Community RTD goals
15. In addition, no SMART objectives16 
and performance indicators were defined for the individual research programmes, thus undermining the basis for sound monitoring and 
evaluation
17.
 21.  Bearing in mind the lack of an explicit intervention logic18, the Court has 
examined the contribution of the new instruments to the Community RTD policy in general as regards the following aspects:
The effectiveness of the research collaboration put in place;   —
and
The scientific quality of individual projects as assessed by the   —
experts.15 Special Report No 9/2007 
concerning ‘Evaluating the EU 
Research and Technological 
Development (RTD) framework 
programmes — Could the Commission’s approach be 
improved?’ (see paragraphs 22 
to 37) (OJ C 26, 30.1.2008). 
Intervention logic is defined by 
the Commission as ‘the conceptual 
link from an intervention’s 
inputs to the production of its outputs and, subsequently, to its 
impacts on society in terms of 
results and outcomes’ (European 
Commission, ‘Evaluating EU 
activities: A practical guide for the 
Commission services’, July 2004, 
pp. 87 and 106).
16 SMART stands for specific, 
measurable, achievable, relevant 
and timed. The definition of 
SMART objectives constitutes a general principle of the EU 
Financial Regulation to ensure 
sound financial management (see 
Article 27(3) of Council Regulation 
(EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 
(OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1)).AUDIT OBSERVATIONS
17 See paragraphs 28 and 30 of Special Report No 9/2007.
18 For example, the impact of the absence of an explicit intervention logic was already highlighted in 2004 by the panel in charg e of 
the Five-year Assessment 1999–2003, which stated that ‘…panels like ours are asked to fill a gap between, on the one side, evid ence 
mainly collected at project level and, on the other side, the higher level socio-economic goals of research policy. However, at  the 
moment the link is difficult to make due to the way the FP is planned. It lacks an explicit logic connecting the highest object ives 
to the specific research and knowledge goals’ ‘Five-year Assessment of the European Union Research Framework Programmes, 
1993–2003’, Report of the Independent Expert Panel chaired by Erkki Ormala (15 December 2004): Section 6 ‘Evaluating the 
Framework Programme’, p. 19.
Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve th eir objectives?16
REVIEWERS’ ASSESSMENT OF RESEARCH COLLABORATION ACHIEVED
REVIEWERS’ ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COLLABORATION
Has the collaboration betwe en the participants been eff  ective?FIGURE 3
Source : European Court of Auditors — Horizontal analysis of project review reports as at 31 December 2007.EFFECTIVE RESEARCH COLLABORATION
 22.  The effectiveness of research collaboration was assessed by reference to 
the actual achievement of project deliverables, the transfer of exist-
ing and new scientific knowledge as well as the use of good practices 
concerning the way in which research is carried out.
 23.  The Court concludes that the FP6 instruments covered by the audit had 
promoted a good level of research collaboration between project  participants. Indeed:
In the Court’s view all the projects visited were successful in   —
promoting international research collaboration between organi-sations from different sectors and disciplines.
The assessment made by independent experts shows that the col- —
laboration between project participants was effective in a large 
majority of cases (see Figure 3 ).
Ye s
PartiallyNo1 %
32 %
67 %1 %
23 %
76 %NoEs
101 projectsIPs
298 projects
Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve th eir objectives?17
 24.  Moreover, the survey of participants reveals an overall satisfaction with 
the two instruments audited (see Figure 4 ). NoEs were found to be 
particularly successful by public research centres and universities, while private partners (including SMEs) considered collaboration less 
fruitful. Concerning IPs, the cooperation was considered effective by 
both public and private partners.
PARTICIPANTS’ PERCEPTION OF THE PROJECT’S EFFECTIVENESSFIGURE 4
How satisfactory do you consider project in terms of …
NoE IP
Coordinators Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
... the promotion of high-quality research collaboration 
between project participants100 % 0 % 98 % 2 %
... the networking of participants 100 % 0 % 97 % 3 %
... coordinating the strategic planning of the participants’ 
research activities86 % 14 % 89 % 11 %
... transfer of knowledge between participants 100 % 0 % 97 % 3 %
... the promotion of the mobility of research staff   between 
participants89 % 11 % 80 % 20 %
Participants Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
... the promotion of high-quality research collaboration 
between project participants92 % 8 % 92 % 8 %
... the networking of participants 94 % 6 % 98 % 2 %
... coordinating the strategic planning of the participants’ 
research activities83 % 17 % 80 % 20 %
... transfer of knowledge between participants 97 % 3 % 88 % 12 %
... the promotion of the mobility of research staff   between 
participants89 % 11 % 64 % 36 %
Source : Survey conducted by the European Court of Auditors.
Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve th eir objectives?18
PROJECT PLANS BETTER THAN IMPLEMENTED PROJECTS 
IN A NUMBER OF CASES
 25.  Project quality is associated with the concept of scientific and tech-
nological excellence and the degree of innovation. It is a normal  practice for research projects that their quality be assessed by peers. For FP6, independent experts were involved in the initial selection 
of proposals as well as in the monitoring and evaluation of projects 
implemented
19.
 26.  Project reviewers’ ex post  assessment is based on:
the progress towards the achievement of its objectives; —
the adequate use of resources; —
the degree to which research collaboration has been effective; —
the soundness of project management, and —
the use and dissemination of knowledge arising from the project. —19 ‘Evaluators’ participate in the 
evaluation process, assessing the 
merits of each of the proposals 
received against the criteria 
defined by the Commission in the 
corresponding call for proposals. Based on the evaluators’ 
assessment, the Commission 
decides which proposals deserve 
to be funded. ‘Reviewers’ intervene 
well after the project has actually 
started. They periodically assess 
progress achieved by a given project during a reference period, 
on the basis of an assessment 
form prepared by the Commission. 
Based on this assessment, the 
Commission decides whether the project may continue or if, 
on the contrary, it should be 
terminated before the planned 
completion date. ‘Evaluators’ and 
‘Reviewers’ are selected from the 
same database constituted by the 
Commission at the start of the programme.
REVIEWERS’ ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT QUALITY
OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE PROJECT’S QUALITYFIGURE 5
Good to excellent project
Acceptable projectUnsatisfactory projectNo reply19 %
0 %39 %18 %
44 %36 %
42 %2 %NoEs
101 projectsIPs
298 projects
Source : European Court of Auditors — Horizontal analysis of project review reports as at 31 December 2007.
Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve th eir objectives?19
 27.  The Court’s analysis of the experts’ review reports shows that more 
than one third of projects were qualified as ‘good to excellent’ (see 
 Figure 5 ). Only six out of 399 projects implemented as NoEs and IPs 
were considered unsatisfactory. However, a large number of projects 
(174 projects, or 44 % of all projects reviewed) were assessed as not 
more than ‘acceptable’. Considering that experts had qualified all  projects as ‘excellent’ at the time of their selection by the Commis-sion, the review results indicate that project quality is declining in 
the implementation phase.
ACHIEVEMENT OF THE NEW INSTRUMENTS’ 
SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES
 28.  As previously indicated (see paragraphs 9 and 10), NoEs were aimed pri-
marily at creating a substantial and lasting integration of the research 
activities of the network partners. IPs were designed to generate the 
knowledge required to implement the thematic priorities, by achiev-
ing ambitious, clearly defined scientific and technological objectives 
of a European dimension. For both instruments, the emphasis was on integrating a ‘critical mass’ of expertise, activities and resources as 
a pre-condition for long-term research activities and partnerships as 
well as for achieving a real impact in scientific, industrial or economic 
terms. The specific target for SMEs has to be considered in view of 
their crucial role in the European economy.
NOES’ INTEGRATION OFTEN REPLACED BY TRADITIONAL 
FORM OF COLLABORATION
 29.  In view of assessing the extent to which NoEs had achieved their specific 
objective of promoting durable integration of the research activities 
of the network partners, the Court analysed whether:
The resources put into the network could be considered significant  —
in relation to each participant’s overall budget.
NoEs had significant control on the deployment of the resources  —
made available for the project.
The high-level researchers initially envisaged had actually been  —
involved in the project.
NoEs had progressed towards long-term research activities and  —
partnerships beyond the duration of Community funding.
Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve th eir objectives?20
 30.  The Court considers that, notwithstanding their success in promot-
ing research collaboration and projects of reasonable quality, NoEs 
audited have not achieved their specific objective. In particular:
Most participants allocated a relatively small proportion of their (a) 
research capacities to the network.
NoEs failed to reach control over resources made available and to (b) 
ensure the adequate coordination of project activities. Participant 
organisations did not accept that NoEs’ governance structures  decide how networked resources should be used.
In most cases the involvement of key high-level scientists in NoEs (c) 
was not realised.
Self-sustainable long-term research activities and partnerships  (d) 
were not achieved for any of the audited NoEs, thus making future 
collaboration subject to continued public support.
 31.  The results of the project reviews carried out by the independent experts 
show that full restructuring of activities and integration between  
partners took place in less than two thirds of the NoEs assessed  
(59 out of 101). Already in 2004, a previous report20 acknowledged 
the difficulties of NoEs in achieving the required ’durable integra-
tion‘. More recently, a study carried out on behalf of the Commission21 
confirmed that only a minority of NoEs have moved convincingly  
towards self-sustainable integration with prospects for longer-term survival beyond the ending of EU funding.
 32.  NoEs often put in place only traditional forms of research collaboration 
on individual actions, instead of coherent and long-term joint activi-
ties and partnerships.
 33.  Two main factors can explain the difficulty that NoEs have in achiev-
ing lasting integration. Firstly, the goal of setting up a new kind  of intra-European network, by integrating institutions previously in competition with each other, requires a new approach to research  collaboration. The reluctance of many organisations to engage in a long-term commitment did not favour this aim. Public research cen-tres, at the heart of the NoEs’ objective, found difficulties in integrat-ing with each other due to their institutional structure and budgetary constraints. For industry, the treatment of intellectual property was a matter of particular concern.20 See Evaluation of the 
effectiveness of the New 
Instruments of Framework Programme VI. Report 
of the High-Level Expert 
Panel chaired by Professor 
R. Marimon, 21 June 2004 
(http://cordis.europa.eu/fp6/
instruments_review/).
21 See Expert Group on the 
future of Networks of Excellence, 
Final Report, September 2008, 
pp. 16 and 47.
Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve th eir objectives?21
 34.  Secondly, there are areas where substantial integration can only be 
achieved progressively. In practice, the maximal duration of five years 
proved not to be realistic. However, in several cases (five of the eight NoEs visited) the project duration had been even reduced during the 
negotiation stage.
 35.  The fact that most NoEs financed under FP6 have not reached durable 
integration raises the question as to the conditions under which it is justified to continue their financing beyond the initial duration, 
under the ongoing Seventh Framework Programme (FP7).
LIGHT AND SHADE CONCERNING NoE PERFORMANCE
One NoE assessed by the Court concerned a project in the field of information society technologies involv-ing a consortium of a large number of both private (SMEs and large industries) and public participants 
(universities). The consortium had been assembled in order to structure fragmented European research in the specific scientific field, reduce duplication, boost excellence and spread scientific knowledge.
The Court reviewed the project’s achievements based on project documentation and interviews with 
representatives of three participants audited. The opinion expressed by the independent experts who carried out the project reviews was taken into account. The Court concluded that the project contrib-uted to sharing new knowledge and to transferring pre-existing knowledge. Research collaboration was promoted and new knowledge generated and disseminated through websites, the participation 
and organisation of conferences, etc. This knowledge had potential commercial applications. A ‘Virtual 
Centre of Excellence’(VCE) was created (a web portal built by project participants containing updated 
information on public and private research in the specific scientific field). A school in the specific field 
of the project has been created by several participants.
At the end of the project, the consortium requested additional funding for a second project phase, 
which was obtained. The participants visited declared that their involvement in the integrating activi-
ties undertaken depended on the availability of additional EU funds. Once the funding ceased, it would 
be impossible to maintain these activities.BOX 3
Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve th eir objectives?22
IPS: LARGE PROJECTS, AND RELATIVELY LOW PARTICIPANTS’ 
FINANCIAL INVOLVEMENT
 36.  Integrated Projects were designed to generate the knowledge required 
to implement the thematic priorities, by achieving ambitious objec-tives of a European dimension.
 37.  The effectiveness of IPs was assessed by the Court for a sample of projects, 
according to the following criteria:
Vertical integration of the full ‘value-chain’ of stakeholders, from  —
those involved in knowledge production through to technology development and transfer.
Horizontal integration of a range of multidisciplinary activities. —
Activity integration: integrating various research activities from  —
fundamental to applied research and with other types of activ-
ity, including take-up activities, protection and dissemination of knowledge, and training.
Sectoral integration of actors from private and public sector   —
research organisations, and in particular between academia and 
industry, including SMEs.
Financial integration of public and private funding. —
LIGHT AND SHADE CONCERNING IPs PERFORMANCE
An Integrated Project was created to develop an innovative environment-friendly packaging based on 
renewable materials, being of positive value to both producers and the consumers. The IP assembled 
the main producers of the raw material and of the final product in order to create synergies. The esti-
mated cost of activities to be carried out within the project exceeded 25 million euro (56,5 % of which 
was financed by the Community).
The project succeeded in integrating stakeholders within several business areas (vertical integration), 
from the public and private sectors (sectoral integration), from different disciplines (horizontal integra-
tion), both fundamental and applied (activity integration). However, the project did not attract any other 
source of funding contributing to the achievement of the project goals. This situation has prevented 
the achievement of financial integration, associated with this specific FP6 instrument.BOX 4
Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve th eir objectives?23
 38.  The evidence shows that the audited IPs have achieved, in general, the 
objectives pursued in their research field and have mobilised a sig-
nificant volume of resources (human, financial, technical). This is  due in particular to a longer duration and an increased number of  
participants when compared to pre-existing instruments
22. However, 
the audited IPs have not succeeded in attracting additional public and private funding.
SME PARTICIPATION TARGET NOT FULLY ACHIEVED
 39.  SMEs play a key role in the European economy, given their weight in the 
business sector and their importance in employment. As mentioned in paragraph 8, FP6 sought to take their particular needs into account and set for this purpose a target of at least 15 % of the total budget for the FP6 thematic priorities, as compared to 10 % in FP5
23.
 40.  Figure 6  shows that, although more SMEs were involved in RTD projects 
when compared to FP5, the EC contribution allocated to SMEs under 
FP6 has decreased both in relative and absolute terms. The Commis-
sion’s best estimate indicates that no more than 10 % of the total  
budget for the FP6 thematic priorities was allocated to SMEs, rep-
resenting some 1,2 billion euro. This is a lower rate than achieved  
under FP5 Thematic Programmes (12 %, representing around 1,4 bil-
lion euro). FP6 has not succeeded in giving a significant stimulus to SMEs’ RTD investment in the thematic priorities. Concerning FP7, first 
results show that the participation of SMEs is further declining
24.
 41.  There are objective difficulties in raising SMEs’ participation. They have 
a more local/regional dimension and face by nature higher entry  
barriers, mainly caused by the complex application procedures and 
the costs of submitting proposals. Cooperation with large research organisations can be hindered by higher financial and technical risks. Also, like for private participants in general, SMEs are not always  prepared to subscribe to long-term contractual commitments for fear 
of losing flexibility to react to changing needs.22 Specific targeted projects.
23 In addition to the funding 
foreseen under the thematic 
priorities, FP6 included a specific 
programme area intended to 
support horizontal research 
activities involving SMEs 
(EUR 475 million).
24 Also FP7 has a similar target 
for SMEs (at least 15 % of 
the funding available under 
the ‘Cooperation’ part of the 
programme). Commission data 
(October 2008) show that SME 
participation accounts for 8,2 % of project participations and 8,5 % 
of the EC contribution awarded.
Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve th eir objectives?24
53 %57 %
37 %
28 %
8 %13 %
2 % 1 %
FP5 FP6 FP5 FP6 FP5 FP6 FP5 FP6
Public Private (non-SME) Private (SME) UndefinedEVOLUTION OF FP PARTICIPATION (THEMATIC PRIORITIES)
BREAKDOWN OF FP6 PARTICIPANTS BY PROJECT INVOLVEMENT
(NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPATIONS)FIGURE 6
BREAKDOWN OF FP6 PARTICIPANTS BY EC CONTRIBUTION RECEIVED
49 %58 %
37 %
31 %
12 %10 %
1 % 1 %
F  P5 FP6 FP5 FP6 FP5 FP6 FP5 FP6
Public Private (non-SME) Private (SME) Undefined
Source : European Court of Auditors, based on Commission data.
Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve th eir objectives?25
 42.  Moreover, some FP6 provisions did discourage the participation of private 
companies. This was the case for the rule establishing consortia’s col-
lective technical and financial responsibility towards the Commission for the implementation of the project. This provision was applied to 
private organisations but not to the public ones, creating de facto  an 
additional burden for this target group. Collective financial responsi-bility has been removed under FP7 and replaced by a guarantee fund financed by part of the advances paid to programme participants.
 43.  FP6 also included the automatic access to the participants’ pre-existing 
knowledge required for the implementation of the project, unless  
explicitly agreed otherwise. This provision resulted in a disincen-
tive for private participation, in particular for SMEs which could not compete on equal terms against larger organisations. Under FP7 more freedom is given to consortia when defining access to existing know-ledge in terms of Intellectual property rights.
THE COMMISSION’S MANAGEMENT 
OF NEW INSTRUMENTS
 44.  The Commission’s management has a decisive role in ensuring the success 
of FP6 activities, in particular by making it attractive to potential par-
ticipants and steering project progress. Manageable structures, clarity 
of objectives, rapid and straightforward procedures, and adequate project monitoring are all determinants of the instruments’ effective-
ness. In this context, the Court analysed the implementation of eight calls for proposals and examined selected management process hav-ing a key impact on the instruments’ performance (namely negotiation 
and project monitoring). The Court’s audit highlighted a number of weaknesses.
Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve th eir objectives?26
UNCERTAINTIES ABOUT THE INSTRUMENTS SPECIFIC ROLE
 45.  As shown by Figure 7 , a number of actors (mainly participants and to 
a lesser extent also coordinators) reached no or insufficient under-
standing about the specific objectives that the instruments were  to achieve and the way in which the instruments were supposed to work. In particular for NoEs, the survey results indicate that they were 
mainly understood as a networking instrument, while the objective 
was that of favouring lasting integration among networked partners. The start of FP6 was characterised by some confusion among poten-
tial applicants, particularly concerning NoEs. And further problems 
were caused by inconsistent communication from the Commission  
services
25.
 46.  Understanding of policy objectives is a key factor for effectiveness. The 
Commission has to ensure that different actors are clear about the 
goals to be pursued. In this respect the role of the coordinators  
should be highlighted, as they show a far better understanding than 
participants. This indicates a problem of communication within con-sortia, probably aggravated by the high number of participants (see 
paragraph 51).
ACTORS’ UNDERSTANDING ABOUT THE AUDITED INSTRUMENTS’ ROLEFIGURE 7
Do you feel you properly understood the diff  erences between the main collaborative instruments (NoE and IP) 
when you selected which one to use for the proposal?
NoE IP
Succesful applicants Coordinators Participants Coordinators Participants
Yes, defi  nitely 86 % 53 % 84 % 62 %
Yes, somewhat 11 % 33 % 13 % 25 %No, somewhat not 0 % 8 % 3 % 12 %No, defi  nitely not 3 % 6 % 0 % 2 %
Unsuccesful applicants Coordinators Participants Coordinators Participants
Yes, defi  nitely 75 % 67 % 60 % 58 %
Yes, somewhat 0 % 33 % 20 % 27 %
No, somewhat not 25 % 0 % 20 % 13 %No, defi  nitely not 0 % 0 % 0 % 2 %
Source : Survey conducted by the European Court of Auditors.25 See also the Expert Group on the 
future of Networks of Excellence, 
op.cit, Section 3.3 (p. 18) and 
Annex 3 (p. 45).
Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve th eir objectives?27
MULTIPLE LEGAL PROVISIONS 
AND NOT ALWAYS SUFFICIENT GUIDANCE
 47.  The legal provisions governing the instruments were spread across a 
range of legal texts26. At different stages decisions were taken by  
the Council and the European Parliament to set up the instruments and their specific objectives (stating in which programme areas they might be applied), or by the Commission concerning the provisions 
for implementing the instruments (specifying in particular the basic Community contribution mechanisms that were narrowly applicable 
to each instrument) and finally the model FP6 contract (specifying 
provisions for programme participants implementing indirect RTD  
actions in the form of specific instruments). The different applicable 
provisions were not always consistent.
 48.  Guidance was not complete when the first FP6 calls for proposals were 
launched in December 2002. The delays affecting the preparation  
and publication of guidelines were traceable, ultimately, to the late 
adoption of model contracts.
 49.  In response to the publication of the 2004 evaluation27, the Commission 
took corrective action aimed at differentiating between the instru-
ments. This resulted in a better understanding of the nature of the 
instruments, but areas of misunderstanding persisted. As a result,  further guidance was provided on several aspects of FP6 project man-
agement not addressed by the initial programme guides
28.
THE NEGOTIATION PROCESS: MORE LENGTHY 
AND OFTEN NOT TRANSPARENT
 50.  Average time-to-contract29 was about 13 months, to be compared with 
a duration of nine months for FP5 calls30. As a result, consortia had 
no choice but to start projects before the contract had been signed. This entailed a legal and financial risk for the beneficiaries, which  is at odds with the objective of encouraging research activities. On the other hand, the project scope (composition of the consortium, duration, work programme) was modified in several cases (11 out of 14 projects audited) at the initiative of the Commission during the negotiation process, without explicit reference to the objectives of the programme.26 See for example Annex III to 
Decision No 1513/2002/EC, Annex 
III to Council Decision 2002/834/EC 
(OJ L 294, 29.10.2002, p. 1) and 
Regulation (EC) No 2321/2002 
of the European Parliament and of the Council 
(OJ L 355, 30.12.2002, p. 23).
27 See Evaluation of the 
effectiveness of the New 
Instruments of Framework 
Programme VI, op. cit.
28 For example, the guide on 
competitive calls for NoEs and IPs 
appeared in November 2004. The 
guide on Intellectual Property rights appeared in March 2004.
29 Time to contract is defined 
as the time elapsed between a 
call closing date and a contract signature.
30 See page 60 of Special Report 
No 1/2004 on the management 
of ‘indirect’ RTD actions under 
the fifth framework programme 
(OJ C 99, 23.4.2004).
Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve th eir objectives?28
FEWER AND LARGER PROJECTS BUT STILL 
A LARGE NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS
 51.  Although there is not a ‘once size fits all’ number of participants, it is 
clear that the larger the number of participants, the more difficult the 
project is to manage (organisational constraints, costs). Compared to FP5, fewer contracts were signed under FP6 and they involved larger consortia. However, on average, the number of participants per con-tract is higher in FP6 (NoEs involved on average 30 participants and 
IPs around 25 partners). Under FP7 the number of participants has 
been reduced (both NoEs and IP-like collaborative projects involve 
on average slightly less than 20 partners).
WEAKNESSES IN PROJECT MONITORING
 52.  All indirect RTD actions implemented under FP6 were subject to periodic 
technical monitoring by the Commission. For Networks of Excellence 
and Integrated Projects, technical monitoring should be supported by project reviews carried out by independent experts (see footnote 
11). In particular, the Court found that two Commission departments 
had failed to fully comply with the legal requirement to have annual 
project reviews performed by independent experts.
 53.  Where the Commission’s departments did meet this requirement, har-
monisation of project reviews was insufficient to allow the effective 
use of review results as a performance indicator, at both project and 
programme levels.
Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve th eir objectives?29
STIMULATION OF RTD INVESTMENT
 54.  The total value of RTD investment carried out under FP6 thematic priori-
ties amounted to 19 billion euro. The EU budget funded 63 % of this 
investment. The private sector (including SMEs) contributed up to  
22 %. The remaining 15 % was funded by national public sources31.
MORE EU FUNDS FOR RELATIVELY 
LESS PARTICIPANTS’ RTD INVESTMENT
 55.  The comparison of FP6 (thematic priorities) with its predecessor (FP5 
thematic programmes32) shows that total investment and EU contribu-
tion have increased in absolute terms (by 8 % and 15 %, respectively). 
However, the ratio ‘Total investment/EU contribution’ has declined 
from 1,69 euro (FP5) to 1,59 euro (FP6). The main reason is that the 
participation of the private sector in general has declined when com-
pared to FP5 (see Figure 6 ).
 56.  The Court’s audit highlighted a risk of ‘low-profile’ commitment of public 
bodies participating in the programme. Cases were found (12 out of 
14 projects assessed) where the volume of own resources was much lower (between 30 % and 80 % less) than the costs actually reimbursed by the Commission
33. In such cases, the stimulation of investment is 
reduced, with the possibility that EU funds simply substitute partici-
pants’ own resources.31 The only data available for 
analysis correspond to the 
contractually agreed estimated 
eligible costs and the related 
Community contribution. The lack 
of more detailed information, in 
particular the total investment actually carried out as a result 
of the participation in the 
programme, makes impossible any 
further analysis.
32 FP5 thematic programmes are 
the predecessors of FP6 thematic 
priorities. They were four: ‘Quality 
of Life and Management of 
Living Resources’, ‘User-friendly 
Information Society’, ‘Competitive 
and Sustainable Growth’ and ‘Energy, Environment and 
Sustainable Development’.
33 According to the model applied 
by a significant number of public bodies (mainly universities), 
participants should allocate 
a volume of own resources 
equivalent to those funded by 
the Community. In this way the 
principle of co-financing would be 
satisfied. However, this condition was not adequately monitored by 
the Commission.
Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve th eir objectives?30
 57.  The Court recalls the lack in FP 6 of an explicit intervention logic, explain-
ing how the different instruments and programmes were supposed 
to strengthen the scientific and technological bases of Community industry and to encourage it to become more competitive at inter-
national level
34. The absence of SMART objectives and performance 
indicators limits significantly the assessment of the contribution of 
specific instruments and activities to the RTD objectives, thus under-mining the basis for sound monitoring and evaluation (see para-graphs 19 and 20).
RECOMMENDATION NO 1
DEVELOP AN EXPLICIT INTERVENTION LOGIC
The Court recalls its previous recommendation that spending  
programmes should be based upon an explicit intervention logic, 
linking the instruments to realistic objectives. In this context, the 
possibility of setting one single objective for each instrument  
should be considered in order to ensure clarity of the instruments’ 
specific role. For each programme there should be appropriate  
performance indicators to monitor the expected outputs, outcomes and impacts.
 58.  The Court found that the FP6 instruments audited had promoted effective 
research collaboration between project participants. However, while all projects were qualified as ‘excellent’ at the time of their selection by the Commission, not more than one third of them kept a rating 
between ‘good to excellent’ after implementation (see paragraphs 22 
to 27).
 59.  The assessment of NoEs’ and IPs’ specific objectives highlights a con-
trasting picture. Notwithstanding their success in promoting research 
collaboration and projects of reasonable quality, none of the NoEs 
audited achieved the specific objective of lasting integration among 
networked partners, thus making future collaboration subject to con-tinued public support. Among the difficulties there was the reluctance 
of many organisations to engage in a long-term commitment, but  
also the fact that the maximal duration of five years proved not to be 
realistic, particularly in areas where lasting integration can only be 
achieved progressively. This raises the question as to the conditions under which it is justified to continue their financing beyond the  
initial duration, under the ongoing Seventh Framework Programme 
(FP7) (see paragraphs 29 to 35).34 See paragraphs 22 to 37 of 
Special Report No 9/2007.CONCLUSIONS AND 
RECOMMENDATIONS
Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve th eir objectives?31
 60.  IPs have, in general, achieved the objectives pursued in their research 
field. Thanks to a longer duration and an increased number of par-
ticipants, they have mobilised a significant volume of resources.  However, IPs have not succeeded in attracting additional public and 
private funding. (see paragraphs 36 to 38).
RECOMMENDATION NO 2
ASSESS THE PERFORMANCE OF NEW INSTRUMENTS COMPARED  
TO TRADITIONAL RESEARCH COLLABORATION
The Commission should consider whether NoEs and IP-like collabo-
rative projects, which continue to receive funding under the current 
Framework Programme (FP7), have been given realistic objectives 
and provide significant advantages as compared with traditional 
instruments for research collaboration. Concerning NoEs financed under FP6, the Commission should assess on a case-by-case basis 
whether past achievements, potential EU added value and pros-
pects of self-sustainability justify further funding under FP7.
 61.  Overall, when compared to FP5, EU funds have increased in FP6 but the 
investment realised is proportionally less important. The main reason 
is that the participation of the private sector in general has declined (see paragraph 55). The Court’s audit revealed cases where EU funds were far higher than the own resources committed by public bodies participating in the programme, with the possibility that EU funds 
simply substitute participants’ own resources (see paragraph 56).
 62.  FP6 sought to take SMEs particular needs into account and set for this 
purpose a target of at least 15 % of the total budget of the thematic 
priorities (like in the current FP7). Although, when compared to FP5, 
more SMEs were involved in RTD projects, the Community contribu-
tion allocated to SMEs in the thematic priorities was limited to 10 % 
(against 12 % in FP5). FP7 first results show a further decline (see  
paragraphs 39 to 40).
Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve th eir objectives?32
 63.  The Court observes that FP6 has not stimulated a significant increase 
in terms of participants’ RTD investment, in a context where the  
European Council has set the objective of reaching RTD investments in the EU equivalent to 3 % of gross domestic product, two thirds of 
which should come from the private sector.
RECOMMENDATION NO 3
EXAMINE THE REASONS FOR A LOW INVESTMENT LEVEL
The Commission should examine the various reasons (specific to the 
Framework Programme or external to it) underlying the relatively 
low level of participants’ RTD investment compared to the goals 
pursued and propose specific measures. Appropriate data should be made available to monitor the catalytic effect of EU RTD funding 
on the investments undertaken. The realism of expected targets, in 
particular for SMEs and the private sector, should be reassessed.
 64.  The Commission’s management has a decisive role in ensuring success 
and making schemes attractive to potential participants. Manageable 
structures, clarity of objectives, rapid and straightforward procedures, 
and project monitoring are all determinants of the Framework Pro-
gramme’s effectiveness.
 65.  The Court’s audit highlighted a number of issues which affected the 
effectiveness of the actions funded by FP6. These concern in particular 
the uncertainty about the instruments’ specific role, the multiplicity 
of legal provisions with guidance not always sufficient, a negotia-tion process that is increasingly long and often not transparent, the 
rather large number of participants/grant and weaknesses in project 
monitoring (see paragraphs 44 to 53).
Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve th eir objectives?33
RECOMMENDATION NO 4
IMPROVE MANAGEMENT CONDITIONS
In view of improving in particular the manageability of projects, 
their adequate implementation and appropriate evaluation, the  
Commission should ensure clear and timely guidance, speedier  
grant awarding procedures and better project monitoring.
  This report was adopted by the Court of Auditors in Luxembourg at its 
meeting of 4 June 2009.
For the Court of Auditors
For the Court of Auditors
Vítor Manuel da Silva Caldeira
President
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve th eir objectives?34
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
III.
The Commission welcomes the Court’s con-
clusion on the success achieved by the FP6 
instruments audited.
(i)
The FPs have always been based on a sound 
intervention logic (in FP7 it is made more  explicit). It is challenging, in particular  
given the inherent uncertainty of research 
results, to ensure all objectives fit precisely 
within the strict definitions of ‘SMART’ cri-
teria. And yet, essential aspects of the  ‘SMART’ rationale were accommodated in  all research-related legislative and imple-mentation acts as can be evidenced e.g. by 
the existence of ‘objectives’ in the FP6 the-
matic priorities, despite the fact that this  
approach was not explicit in the Financial  
Regulation applicable at the moment of the FP6 preparation and adoption. Under FP7, all 
work programmes contain expected impact 
statements, which correspond with the  
objectives, rationale and activities set out  
in the Specific Programmes.
(ii)
The Commission believes that some ‘Net-works of Excellence’ have been less suc-cessful than others but several NoEs reached 
self-sustained integration. This is normal  
given the wide range of areas covered, the various participants in dozens of different  
projects and the realities of collaboration  
in consortia.
On their side, the IPs were, by common  
admission, quite successful, for example, in the areas of energy and transport industri-ally led demonstration IPs. Many projects  have led to market deployment and repli-cation after the successful end of the FP6  contracts.
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve th eir objectives?35
(iii)
The Commission considers that its manage-
ment of the FP6 instruments has played  
an important role in ensuring the success  achieved by these instruments. The Com-mission has actively sought to address any 
problems encountered, within the con-
straints imposed by the existing legislative framework. Draft guidance documents were 
actually available even before the launch of 
FP6.
(iv)
FP6 alone (with its two new instruments, the IPs and NoEs) is not the panacea for the chal-
lenges facing the European research land-
scape, especially since it made up only 5 % 
of the overall European funding for research. 
Moreover, at a moment when thousands of 
projects financed by it continue their course, it is too early to make conclusive compari-
sons with FP5. Further, the Commission  
believes that FP6 has provided a signifi-
cant boost to research efforts and that the 
achievements of FP6 have been substantial. 
The Commission acknowledges the Court’s 
findings as regards the participation of the private sector and would like to add that  
when taking into account public and private organisations engaged in commercial activi-ties (the business enterprise sector) partici-
pation rates are similar to those of FP5.
The Commission agrees about the difficul-
ties related to the SME participation under 
FP6. These issues have been addressed in  FP7.IV.
The FPs have always been based on a sound intervention logic which has allowed effec-
tive evaluation and monitoring. In FP7, the intervention logic is made more explicit,  together with the objectives and per-
formance measures that will help further  
strengthen the evaluation and monitoring  system. In FP7, research goals and research 
policy objectives are clearly and explicitly  
set in the work programmes. For each topic, 
the scientific goals, the scope of activities 
and indications on the results expected are defined.
V.
(i)The Commission has evaluated IPs and NoEs 
through various studies and reports. With  
regard to a continued funding of FP6 NoEs under FP7, the Commission reached a similar 
conclusion to the Court.
(ii)
The Commission is constantly examining the 
research landscape, monitors the national  
R & D policies and is actively engaged in  endeavours to further research investments 
through, not least, the open method of  coordination.
(iii)
The Commission agrees that clear and timely 
guidance, a speedier contracting proc-
ess and better project monitoring are very 
important. The Commission carries out its  obligations while it constantly has to bal-ance between two goals that are difficult  to reconcile, namely the speediness of dis-
bursement of funds and the need to ensure 
their accountable distribution to contrac-
tors, all in the context of the given legisla-
tive environment.
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve th eir objectives?36
INTRODUCTION
10.
FP6 was meant to encourage the participa-
tion of SMEs in all areas and all instruments, 
in particular in the context of the activities carried out in the priority thematic areas.
16.
A lower success rate for proposals under FP6 than under FP5 is attributed to the higher  
subscription rates under FP6. Subscription 
rates depend on a number of complex fac-
tors, among others the degree of detail of  
the calls for proposals, the funds available and the evaluation approach.
AUDIT OBSERVATIONS
20.–21.In its response to a previous audit of the  Court
1, the Commission maintained that  
the FPs have always been based on a sound 
intervention logic, which has been articu-
lated as per the Treaty’s provisions in the  
various legislative and implementation acts. In FP7 this is made more explicit, which will 
further strengthen the Commission’s moni-toring and evaluation. It is challenging, in  particular given the inherent uncertainty  of research results, to ensure all objectives fit precisely within the strict definitions of 
‘SMART’ criteria. Despite the fact that this  approach was not explicit in the Financial  
Regulation applicable at the moment of  
the FP6 preparation and adoption, essen-
tial elements of the ‘SMART’ approach  were nevertheless taken up in the Commis-sion’s work programmes under FP6. Under  FP7, which was developed on the basis of  a detailed ex ante  impact assessment, all  
work programmes contain expected impact statements, which correspond with the  
objectives, rationale and activities set out  
in the Specific Programmes.
1 See the Commission’s replies to Special Report No 9/2007.24.The Commission considers that the high  
overall satisfaction with the two instruments 
(NoEs and IPs) expressed by the participants in the Court’s survey is very positive. Given the different scope and profile of the two  
instruments, it is normal that private part-
ners found in particular IPs more suitable to fit their needs.
27.
As proposals correspond to ‘expectations’  
and projects to reality, and as the imple-mentation of projects can result in unex-
pected difficulties, it is not surprising that 
the evaluation of some projects could be  
less positive than the evaluation of the pro-
posals they stemmed from.
30.
The Commission notes that, according to Fig-
ure 5, the overall assessment of the projects’ 
quality showed them to be ‘acceptable’  
and ‘good to excellent’ with a percentage  
of above 80 %, which suggests that partici-pants adequately allocated their research  
capacities to the network. One of the most important aspects of these new instruments, repeatedly brought forward in various guid-ance documents, was the enhanced role of the consortia themselves (and, in particular, 
of the coordinators) concerning the internal management of the project. It could be too 
soon to reach a definitive conclusion on how 
and/or if the objective of ‘self-sustainable  
long-term research activities and partner-ships’ has been reached.
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve th eir objectives?37
The Commission notes that the behaviour of 
the NoEs has been variable across the Frame-
work Programme. In some thematic priori-ties such as IST and NMP, NoEs tend to reach greater degrees of sustainable development 
than in others
2.
31.
The Commission notes the Court’s own  
statement that almost two thirds of NoEs  
achieved full restructuring of activities and 
integration between partners, which is a  considerable proportion.
33.
Certain circumstances may have hindered  
participants from working together more  
effectively. This is a normal trait, inextri-
cably linked to the nature of collaboration between various actors with complementary 
yet different individual research goals.
35.
The possibility of continuing the financ-ing of certain promising NoEs under FP7 is 
addressed on a case-by-case basis. In fact, an FP6 NoE’s duration may be prolonged under FP7 to achieve its objectives but without new funding (cases of these currently exist).
38.
A distinction has to be made between the  
possible dimension of financial integration, 
in the sense of the guidelines issued by the 
Commission for IPs, and the co-financing  principle governing any FP6 project. There has been no requirement on IP participants to attract other sources of funding beyond their own co-financing share. The Commis-
sion notes variable behaviour across the the-matic areas of the Framework Programme in 
terms of attracting additional private and  
public funding.
2 IST and NMP refer to the FP6 thematic priorities ‘Informa-
tion society technologies’ and ‘Nanotechnologies and nano-
sciences, knowledge-based multifunctional materials, and 
new production processes and devices’.40.
Concerning FP7, it is still too early in the course 
of this seven-year long FP to suggest any final 
judgment on the SMEs’ participation.
41.–43.
The Commission agrees about the difficul-
ties related to the SME participation under FP6. These issues have been addressed  
in FP7. In addition, on top of the funding  
provided following calls for proposals, FP7 
supports the Eurostars Joint Programme for 
SMEs based on Article 169 of the Treaty by up to 100 million euro. The programme is  
jointly undertaken by Eureka countries, sup-
porting transnational projects initiated and 
led by R & D performing SMEs. Eurostars is 
expected to contribute to building the Euro-
pean Research Area by integrating the par-
ticipating national programmes into a joint programme at European level.
44.
The Commission considers that the Court’s 
conclusion that the FP6 instruments audited had promoted effective research collabora-
tion between project participants (see para-graph 58) reflects well on the Commission’s overall management of these instruments.  The Commission has actively sought to  address any problems encountered, within 
the constraints imposed by the existing leg-islative framework, and continues to do so 
under FP7.
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve th eir objectives?38
45.
The Commission provided guidance material 
to the actors involved in order to facilitate their understanding of the new instruments. A very high percentage of coordinators and 
participants in the survey apparently did  
understand the distinction between the two instruments (see the Court’s Figure 7). It is 
also to be expected that coordinators would 
have a better understanding of these than 
other participants. The European research  
community by and large understood and  used well the new instruments, as evidenced 
by Figure 7 itself.
46.
One of the most important aspects of these 
new instruments, repeatedly brought for-
ward in various guidance documents, was  the enhanced role of the consortia them-
selves (and, in particular, of the coordina-
tors) concerning the internal management 
of the project.
47.
The Commission implemented the FP in the best possible manner to ensure compliance with the different applicable provisions.
48.
The Commission has acted as quickly as pos-sible given the late adoption of the FP6 legal 
acts by the legislators. Detailed brochures 
and ‘Provisions for implementing’ for all  
the instruments were already available in  November 2002, well before the production of the model contracts. A large number of  guidance documents have been produced  
and published on the internet. Additionally, 
targeted events for coordinators, to which 
all projects have been invited, addressed in 
particular any questions they might have  
had on the specificities of the instruments.49.
The Commission is pleased that the Court  
appreciates its continuous efforts to promote better understanding of the new instruments under FP6, including its quick response to  
external evaluations. The European research 
community by and large understood and  used the new instruments well.
50.
The introduction of new instruments una-
voidably brought the need for proposers to become familiar with new notions in terms 
of the negotiations to be carried out and  
the data to be submitted, elements that  
very often made necessary further contacts 
and exchanges between participants them-
selves, an always time-consuming process. 
Further, the obligation imposed on the Com-mission by the legislator (the Council, in this 
case) to receive a (positive) opinion on all  
IPs and NoEs to be funded (irrespective of  
the amount of Community contribution)  
contributed to making the time-to-contract longer. Moreover, the time is comparable  
to that of other major funding agencies in the world. As regards the negotiation proc-ess, modifications on the project scope were always done in the context of the FP’s legal framework.
51.
The Commission acknowledges the Court’s 
comments. However, the Commission recalls 
that one of the most important aspects of  these new instruments, repeatedly brought forward in various guidance documents, was the enhanced role of the consortia them-selves (and, in particular, of the coordina-
tors) concerning the internal management of the project.
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve th eir objectives?39
52.
The Commission strongly endorses the  
importance of project monitoring, carried  out through a variety of means including  the detailed attention of project officers. It 
recognises however, that there have been  
some cases, often for individual and specific reasons, where independent review was not 
carried out.
53.
A common template for the reviewers’ report was prepared for all Research DGs. A basic 
common guidance document was also pre-
pared and given to the different services to 
adapt to their own needs.
55.
The Commission acknowledges the Court’s findings. The Commission would like to  
stress, however, that the EU contribution  
to the private sector under FP6 increased  
significantly by more than 1 billion euro in 
comparison to FP5. It is also true that the  situation differs by sectors. The Commission 
considers that FP6 had a positive influence on industrial competitiveness. Furthermore, it would like to add that when taking into  account public and private organisations  engaged in commercial activities (the busi-
ness enterprise sector) participation rates  are similar to those of FP5.CONCLUSIONS AND 
RECOMMENDATIONS
57.
The Commission considers that the FPs have 
always been based on a sound intervention logic. Under FP6, the legislative acts and the Commission’s work programmes and infor-
mation material of various types provided  
a coherent stream and wealth of informa-tion on intervention logic, objectives, jus-
tification of the efforts and their European 
added value, actions envisaged, rationale  
and operational framework of application  
for all instruments to be used and other  helpful information for the proposers and  
project participants. It is challenging, in  
particular given the inherent uncertainty  
of research results, to ensure all objectives 
fit precisely within the strict definitions of 
‘SMART’ criteria. Despite the fact that this  
approach was not explicit in the Financial  Regulation applicable at the moment of  
the FP6 preparation and adoption, essen-
tial elements of the ‘SMART’ approach were 
nevertheless taken up in the Commission’s 
work programmes under FP6. Under FP7, all work programmes contain expected impact 
statements, which correspond with the  objectives, rationale and activities set out  in the Specific Programmes. The Commission considers that FP6 was properly monitored and evaluated.
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve th eir objectives?40
Recommendation No 1
The Commission considers that the FPs have 
always been based on a sound intervention logic which has allowed effective evalua-
tion and monitoring. Under FP7, which was 
developed on the basis of a detailed ex ante  
impact assessment, all work programmes  contain expected impact statements, which correspond with the objectives, rationale  
and activities set out in the Specific Pro-grammes. This will help further strengthen 
the evaluation and monitoring system. Under 
FP7, instead of being encapsulated in the  
‘instruments’, research goals and research  
policy objectives, including those aiming at structuring research efforts, are clearly and 
explicitly set in the work programmes. For 
each topic on which proposals are invited, 
the scientific goals, the scope of activities 
and indications on the results expected are 
defined.
58.
The Commission welcomes the Court’s con-
clusion that the FP6 instruments covered  
by the audit had promoted a good level  
of research collaboration between project  participants. As proposals correspond to  
‘expectations’ and projects to reality, and as the implementation of projects can result in unexpected difficulties, it is not surprising that the evaluation of some projects could be less positive than the evaluation of the 
proposals they stemmed from.59.
There was a large number of NoEs where  
lasting integration among partners was  achieved and the overall quality of projects 
was deemed high (the overall assessment  
in Figure 5 shows the NoEs’ quality to be  ‘acceptable’ and ‘good to excellent’ with a total percentage of above 80 %). Almost two 
thirds of NoEs achieved full restructuring of 
activities and integration between partners. The possibility of continuing the financing 
of certain promising FP6 NoEs under FP7 is 
addressed on a case-by-case basis. In fact, an 
FP6 NoE’s duration may be prolonged with-
out new funding (cases of these currently  exist). Moreover, new NoEs could be envis-
aged in duly justified cases.
60.
A distinction has to be made between the  
possible dimension of financial integration 
and the co-financing principle governing any FP6 project. There has been no requirement 
on IP participants to attract other sources  
of funding beyond their own co-financ-
ing share. The Commission notes variable  
behaviour across the thematic areas of the Framework Programme in terms of attracting 
additional private and public funding.
Recommendation No 2
The Commission has evaluated these FP6  instruments through various means. With  
regard to a continued funding of FP6 NoEs, the Commission reached a similar conclusion 
following the Report of the Expert Group on 
the future of Networks of Excellence.
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve th eir objectives?41
61.
The Commission acknowledges the Court’s 
findings. Still, it points out that this did not diminish the FP’s role as a contributor to the 
promotion of industrial competitiveness.
Furthermore, it would like to add that when 
taking into account public and private  organisations engaged in commercial activi-ties (the business enterprise sector) partici-pation rates are similar to those of FP5.
62.
Concerning FP7, it is still too early in the  
course of this seven-year-long FP to sug-gest any final judgment on the SMEs’  participation.
63.
FP6 makes up a very small part (close to 5 %) 
of the overall funding provided for research 
in Europe and, hence, its scope for influ-ence in a domain where Member States have 
the first role to play is by definition lim-
ited. Yet the Commission believes that FP6 
has provided a significant boost to research 
efforts.
Recommendation No 3
The Commission is constantly examining the 
research landscape, monitors the national  R & D policies and is actively engaged in  the endeavours to further research invest-
ments through, not least, the open method of coordination.65.
The Commission has actively sought to  
address any problems encountered, within the constraints imposed by the existing leg-
islative framework. The Commission notes  
that the large number of projects under  the new instruments, which points to the  involvement of thousands of participants in 
them, as well as the overall good results that 
were registered for them, shows that any  shortcomings have not been important for 
the overall use of the IPs and the NoEs.
Recommendation No 4
The Commission agrees that clear and timely 
guidance, a speedier contracting proc-
ess and better project monitoring are very 
important elements for the implementation 
of a European FP for research. The Commis-
sion carries out its obligations while it con-
stantly has to balance between two goals  
that are difficult to reconcile, namely the  speediness of disbursement of funds and the 
need to ensure their accountable distribu-
tion to contractors, all in the context of the 
current legislative environment.

REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve th eir objectives?43
European Court of Auditors
Special Report No 8/2009
‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives?
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union2009 — 41 pp. — 21  
/H11003 29.7 cm
ISBN 978-92-9207-408-1doi:10.2865/63596

How to obtain EU publications
Publications for sale:
•  via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);•  from your bookseller by quoting the title, publisher and/or ISBN number;•  by contacting one of our sales agents directly. 
You can obtain their contact details on the Internet (http://bookshop.europa.eu) or by sending a fax to +352 2929-42758.
Free publications:•  via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);•  at the European Commission’s representations or delegations. 
You can obtain their contact details on the Internet (http://ec.europa.eu) or by sending a fax to +352 2929-42758.
THE SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME WAS SET UP BY THE EU TO 
PROMOTE EUROPEAN RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT DURING THE PERIOD FROM 2002 TO 2006. THE COURT ANALYSED 
THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE TWO MAIN INSTRUMENTS, ‘NETWORKS 
OF EXCELLENCE’  AND ‘INTEGRATED PROJECTS’ , HAD EFFECTIVELY CONTRIBUTED TO THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE PROGRAMME. THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT THESE INSTRUMENTS CONTRIBUTED TO THE GENERAL OBJECTIVE OF PROMOTING EFFECTIVE RESEARCH COLLABORATION BUT THEIR SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES WERE ONLY PARTIALLY ACHIEVED.
EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORSQJ-AB-09-010-EN-C