EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/241

(2004/C 78 E/0244)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3231/03

by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(31 October 2003)

Subject: Allocation of subsidies under the fifth and sixth framework programmes

The projects funded with help from the fifth and sixth framework programmes are generally held in high esteem. They are often innovative and the mere requirement that the partners/bodies working together must come from several different countries generates positive synergy which can help to create Community value.

Unfortunately, reports of problems have also come to my attention, problems which, in some cases, are so serious as to undermine the positive impact of programmes and projects. In many cases, these problems lead to disillusionment and a reluctance to submit fresh proposals.

Above all, the complaints concern the administration of the programmes:

— The administrative arrangements are complex, anything but transparent and require the investment of an unreasonable amount of time, money and effort.

— In the case of smaller bodies, the administrative burden has become an insurmountable obstacle and the percentage of funding granted to cover overheads is too low. Unfortunately, this also applies to many bodies from the applicant countries.

— In some cases, additional information is requested at the very last moment before a time-limit runs out. This results in enormous delays in processing applications and making payments.

— Proposals for projects seem to be assessed in an arbitrary manner. High quality in terms of substance and presentation does not necessarily lead to approval, whereas low quality does not always result in rejection.

Naturally enough, I realise that meticulous procedures are needed in order to prevent fraud and the misuse of Community funds.

Nevertheless, I should like to put the following questions:

1. Does the Commission acknowledge the problems outlined above?

2. Have its relevant departments set up procedures for dealing with reports of problems?

3. What measures have the relevant Commission departments taken with a view to improving and/or simplifying administrative procedures?

4. What measures does the Commission plan to take?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 2003)

The Commission acknowledges that certain organisations face some problems relating to issues identified in this written question. However, it should be noted that great efforts have been made to improve the transparency and availability of the information available to potential proposers, including information of networks of national contact points and training and information sessions that should help to relieve the administrative tasks relating to applications for research funding. Specifically with respect to the percentage of funding granted to cover overheads there should be no problem for any organisation to charge its real overheads related to any project. There are only some particular instruments where the overhead rates are limited and this is because of the nature of those instruments and the fact that they reimburse 100 % of eligible costs.

As mentioned, every effort is made to ensure that all information is available well in advance and that no last-minute requests for additional information are required. During negotiation of projects it is possible that further information is required because of something that is discovered in the initial stages of the negotiation. But in most cases the time limits are sufficient to allow the potential contractors to provide such information within the delays.

The Commission cannot agree with the statement that proposals are assessed in an arbitrary manner. On the contrary, the evaluation of research proposals is based on the principle of ‘peer review’ generally accepted and applied in scientific institutions worldwide and the procedures and criteria used are made widely available. The Commission uses the help of independent experts, to evaluate proposals against the various criteria set out in the legal texts governing the framework programme. In particular, scientific and technological excellence is a sine qua non for a proposal to be accepted under the Sixth Framework Programme (FP6). The high quality of the evaluation process, the experts used, as well as the selected proposals have all been confirmed by the observations and reports of independent observers who attend the evaluations, national contact points and fellow evaluators. Poor quality proposals are not funded; however it is the case that not all high quality projects submitted can be funded, due to budget limitations.

Each report of a problem is dealt with seriously and attentively and investigated to determine whether it is well founded or based on misunderstandings of the basic principles. Where there are real problems, efforts are made to correct them. A number of measures have been taken, particularly with the FP6, in order to ensure that research consortia take more responsibility for the management of their own projects and are more engaged in the scientific and research aspects rather than being obliged to follow primarily administrative aspects. This has been reflected in the Rules for Participation and the model contract for FP6.

It is not estimated that any general measures need to be taken at this time, except for the constant general aim of improving the quality of information available to potential contractors.

In addition, it should be noted that a specific interservice Task Force has been established since the beginning of FP6 in order to monitor the implementation of the FP6 instruments, in particular the new ones (Integrated Projects and Networks of Excellence). In parallel, a number of interservice Working Groups continuously monitor FP6 progress in different domains (evaluation, guidelines for proposers or evaluators, etc.) and accordingly react by resolving any identified issue and updating the corresponding documentation.