Commission staff working document - Accompanying document to the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the progress made under the 7th European Framework Programme for Research {COM(2009) 209 final}
Date: 2009-04-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Treaty of Lisbon, action programme, report, research and development, research programme

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 29.4.2009 
SEC(2009) 589 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Accompanying document to the 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN 
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE 
REGIONS 

On the progress made under the 7th European Framework Programme for Research  

{COM(2009) 209 final}

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3 

Context ......................................................................................................................... 3 

Structure, Coverage, Indicators.................................................................................... 3 

FP7 Implementation – General Overview.................................................................... 5 

Aims and Objectives of FP7 ........................................................................................ 5 

Structure and Novelties of FP7 .................................................................................... 5 

General Participation Patterns...................................................................................... 9 

Gender Equality and FP7 ........................................................................................... 18 

Quality Assessment of Proposal Evaluation .............................................................. 21 

Redress Procedure...................................................................................................... 22 

Ethics Reviews ........................................................................................................... 23 

FP7 Implementation – Special Focus......................................................................... 24 

Reinforcing the European Dimension........................................................................ 24 

Supporting Sustainable Development and Responding to Societal and 
Interdisciplinary Needs and Challenges..................................................................... 31 

A Boost for Frontier Research: The European Research Council ............................. 48 

Partnership with Industry ........................................................................................... 51 

A new Approach to International Cooperation .......................................................... 54 

Optimising Finance Opportunities: The Risk Sharing Financial Facility.................. 57 

Better Management through Simplification............................................................... 59 

Concrete Achievements ............................................................................................. 59 

Challenges: The Need to Reach an Agreement on the Balance between Trust and 
Risk in Research Funding .......................................................................................... 67 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

2.3. 

2.4. 

2.5. 

2.6. 

2.7. 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

3.3. 

3.4. 

3.5. 

3.6. 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

ANNEX 1: GLOSSARY.......................................................................................................... 69 

ANNEX 2: ERAB VIEWS ON THE CONTRIBUTION OF FP7 INSTRUMENTS TO THE 
ESTABLISHMENT OF A GENUINE EUROPEAN RESEARCH AREA ............................ 73 

EN 

2 

   EN 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1. 

Context 

This  Commission  Staff  Working  Document,  together  with  a  Communication  from  the 
Commission1, constitutes the FP7 Progress Report. The FP7 Progress Report provides initial 
findings on the effectiveness of the new actions initiated under the 7th Framework Programme 
for  Research2  (FP7)  and  of  the  efforts  made  with  regard  to  simplification,  but  also  aims  at 
going beyond by sketching a road map in view of mastering the challenges ahead. It responds 
to  the  legal  obligations  included  in  the  FP7  Decision  and  provides  a  basis  for  the  Interim 
Evaluation of FP7 to be undertaken in 2010. 

While the Communication provides a summary of highlights and challenges, this Commission 
Staff  Working  Document  presents  a  detailed  assessment  of  the  implementation  and  the 
achievements of FP7 so far. 

1.2. 

Structure, Coverage, Indicators 

This  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  is  structured  along  the  lines  of  the  new  FP7 
Monitoring  System.  The  FP7  Monitoring  system  marks  a  relevant  change  in  the  field  of 
Framework  Programme  monitoring.  It  is  based  on  a  core  set  of  performance  indicators 
addressing  a  broad  spectrum  of  implementation  issues.  The  FP7  Monitoring  system  is 
intended  to  cover  all  activities  under  the  Framework  Programme,  with  direct  (in  house) 
research  actions  carried  out  by  the  Joint  Research  Centre  (JRC)3  being  the  only  exception. 
The  coverage  is  predominately  for  implementation  issues  and  in  a  more  limited  way 
(reflecting data availability) research outputs. 

The core of the new monitoring approach involves the selection of key indicators on priority 
and  sensitive  issues.  Taken  together,  these  are  expected  to  provide  a  clear  snapshot  of  the 
effectiveness and efficiency Framework Programme implementation, as well as the level and 
quality  of  output.  The  list  of  indicators  and  sub-indicators  applied  for  the  FP7  monitoring 
system  is  presented  in  Table  1.  Further  details  can  be  found  in  the  First  FP7  Monitoring 
Report (Monitoring Report 2007)4. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

now, 

[to  the  Council,  the  European  Parliament,  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the 
Committee of the Regions] 
Two Seventh Framework Programmes under the EC and EURATOM Treaties (together called “FP7”) 
started in 2007. For information on the FP7 objectives and structure as well as on its implementation up 
to 
at 
Annual 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/index.cfm?pg=reports.  
the  Annual  Activity  Reports 
Monitoring  of  JRC  direct  actions 
(http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/synthesis/aar/doc/jrc_aar.pdf) and by the JRC Board of Governors based on 
the information contained in the JRC Annual Report. 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/reports/2009/pdf/first_fp7_monitoring_en.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none 

is  carried  out 

through 

Reports 

2008 

2007 

and 

e.g. 

see 

the 

EN 

3 

   EN 

                                                 
Table 1: List of key indicators used for the FP7 monitoring system. 

INDICATOR / ISSUE 

SUB-INDICATOR 

1.1  Number of attendees at launch days 

1.  Promotion of FP7 

1.2  Number of information days 

2.  Performance of the calls 

3.  Performance  of 

the  proposal 
redress 

and 

evaluation 
procedures 

4.  Quality  of  on-going 

research 

projects 

5.  Project performance by outputs 

6.  FP activity 

7.  Achieving gender equality 

8.  Observing 

sound 

ethical 

principles in FP research 

9.  Performance 

of 

International 

Cooperation activities 

10.  Simplification of the FP 

1.3  Commission organised meetings of NCPs 

2.1  Success rate (overall) by priority area and funding scheme 
2.2  Success rate for different types of organisation by priority area and 

funding scheme 

2.3  Success rate for different types of organisation by priority area and 

funding scheme & success rates per country 

3.1  Overall quality assessment of the proposal evaluators on the FP 

proposal evaluation process (evaluators survey) 

3.2  Assessment of quality by the evaluators between the FP evaluation 

process and other equivalent systems (evaluators survey) 

3.3  Time to contract/grant 

3.4  Percentage of experts reimbursed within the specified 45 days 
3.5  Redress cases upheld (i.e. leading to a re-evaluation) – numbers and 

percentages 

4.1  Average results of independent project review process by priority area 

4.2  Percentage of projects by priority area covered by reviews 

5.1  Average number of project publications per project by priority area and 

funding scheme 

5.2  Average number of other forms of dissemination activities per project by 

priority area and funding scheme 

5.3  Average number of different types of intellectual property protection per 

project by priority area and funding scheme 

6.1  Total number of active projects by priority area 

6.2  Average financial size of projects by priority area and funding scheme 

6.3  Participation by types of organisation by priority area funding scheme  

6.4  Participation totals per country 

7.1  Number of male and female coordinators in proposals 

7.2  Number of male and female coordinators in projects  

7.3  Gender breakdown (by seniority) of project participants 
7.4  Percentage of male and female members in Advisory Groups and 

Programme Committees 

8.1  Number of projects going through the review process/ % by area/ 

programme 

8.2  Number of ethical reviews where the result showed sufficient or 

insufficient attention had been given 

8.3  Number of projects stopped as a results of the ethical review 

8.4  Number of screenings by services 
9.1  Total numbers of participations of 3rd countries by priority area and 

funding scheme  

9.2  Success rates of 3rd countries in calls by priority area and funding 

scheme  

9.3  EC contribution to 3rd countries 

9.4  Number of international outgoing / incoming fellowships 
10.1  Do stakeholders perceive that the FP is getting simpler to use in terms 

of financial and administrative procedures? 

10.2  How do stakeholders find the ease of use of the FP compared to similar 

international research actions and large national schemes? 

10.3  Are there any aspects of FP procedures which are adversely affecting to 

a significant extent the quality of research carried out and the quality of 
participation in the FP? 

This Commission Staff Working Document covers the years 2007 and 2008. It should be kept 
in mind that at the time of the writing of the report, information on grant agreements resulting 
from "2008 calls" can only be limited, considering that negotiations related to some of these 
"2008 calls" are still ongoing. One consequence of the limitations in data availability is that it 
is not possible to be both informative and consistent in the definition of "2008" throughout the 
report.  Where  reference  is  made  to  "2008  calls",  calls  with  a  "2008  call-ID"  are  included. 
Where  little  or  no  information  is  available  for  2008,  the  report  refers  to  the  latest  available 
data.

EN 

4 

   EN 

2. 

FP7 IMPLEMENTATION – GENERAL OVERVIEW 

2.1.  Aims and Objectives of FP7 

The  legislative  basis  for  FP75  states  that  "the  overriding  aim  of  the  Seventh  Framework 
Programme  is  to  contribute  to  the  Union  becoming  the  world's  leading  research  area.  This 
requires  the  Framework  Programme  to  be  strongly  focused  on  promoting  and  investing  in 
world-class  state-of-the-art  research,  based  primarily  upon  the  principle  of  excellence  in 
research  [...].  The  objectives  [...]  should  be  chosen  with  a  view  to  building  upon  the 
achievements  of  the  Sixth  Framework  Programme  towards  the  creation  of  the  European 
Research  Area  and  carrying  them  further  towards  the  development  of  a  knowledge-based 
economy  and  society  in  Europe  which  will  meet  the  goals  of  the  Lisbon  strategy  in 
Community policies."  

Hence,  FP7  is  a  cornerstone  in  the  European  Union  strategy  to  realize  the  knowledge 
economy as the best way for Europe to foster sustainable growth in a globalised economy. It 
plays  a  fundamental  role  in  stimulating  competitiveness  and  welfare  in  Europe  by  being  a 
catalyst in the efforts towards the achievement of the European Research Area (ERA) and the 
attainment  of  the  ‘fifth  freedom’,  i.e.  the  free  circulation  of  researchers,  knowledge  and 
technology within a European ‘internal market’ for research.  

FP7  introduces  novel  elements  relating  to  both  content  and  implementation.  It  is  endowed 
with a budget significantly higher than its predecessor (41% increase at 2004 prices), which 
clearly reflects the importance of research in the broader European political context. 

2.2. 

Structure and Novelties of FP7 

2.2.1.  Structure 

A new structure was designed to capture the broad range of research activities funded by the 
European  Union  under  FP7.  The  broad  objectives  of  FP7  have  been  grouped  into  four 
categories:  "Cooperation",  "Ideas",  "People"  and  "Capacities".  For  each  type  of  objective, 
there  is  a  specific  programme  corresponding  to  the  main  areas  of  EU  research  policy.  In 
addition, the Joint Research Centre's (JRC) direct actions relating to non-nuclear research are 
grouped under a specific programme with its own budget allocation. JRC direct actions in the 
field of nuclear research and the indirect actions supported by the EURATOM 7th Framework 
for Programme for Nuclear Research and Training Activities comprise distinct strands of FP7. 
This structure is illustrated in the diagram below. 

5 

Decision  No  1982/2006/EC  of  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 (2007-2013), OJ L412, 30.12.2006 

EN 

5 

   EN 

                                                 
Figure 1: Structure of FP7 – Specific Programmes and Thematic Areas. 

SPECIFIC 
PROGRAMMES 

Health 

Thematic areas 

I

N
O
T
A
R
E
P
O
O
C

IDEAS (ERC) 

E
L
P
O
E
P

e
i
r
u
C
e
i
r
a
M

(

)
s
n
o
i
t
c
A

I

I

S
E
T
C
A
P
A
C

EURATOM 

JRC (Direct 
Actions) 

Food, Agriculture, and Biotechnology 

Information and Communication Technologies 

Nanosciences, Nanotechnologies, Materials and new Production Technologies 

Energy 

Environment (including Climate Change) 

Transport (including Aeronautics) 

Socio-economic Sciences and Humanities 

Space 

Security 

General Activities 

Starting Independent Researcher Grants 

Advanced Investigator Grants 

Initial Training of Researchers 

Lifelong Learning and Career Development 

Industry - Academia Partnerships / Pathways 

The International Dimension 

Specific Actions 

Research Infrastructures 

Research for the Benefit of SMEs 

Regions of Knowledge 

Research Potential 

Science in Society 

Coherent Development of Research Policies 

Activities of International Cooperation 

Fusion Energy  

Nuclear Fission and Radiation Protection 

Prosperity in a Knowledge Intensive Society 

Solidarity and the Responsible Management of Resources 

Security and Freedom 

Europe as a World Partner 

That  structure  can  be  further  broken  down  into  the  general  headings  given  in  the  diagram 
below. In broad terms: 

•  The  "Cooperation"  Programme  provides  project  funding  for  collaborative,  transnational 
research. The programme is organised through thematic priorities such as health, energy, 
transport etc. 

•  The "Ideas" Programme provides project funding for individuals and their teams engaged 
in  frontier  research.  This  programme  is  managed  by  the  European  Research  Council 
(ERC). 

•  The "People" Programme funds actions to improve the training, career development, and 
mobility of researchers between sectors and countries world wide. It is managed under the 
Marie Curie programme and also includes specific actions to support the implementation 
of  the  European  Charter  for  Researchers  and  Code  of  Conduct  for  the  Recruitment  of 
Researchers and researchers' mobility under the umbrella of "EURAXESS– Researchers in 
motion". 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
•  The "Capacities" Programme funds actions that are designed to improve Europe's research 
infrastructure and the research capacity of SMEs. It also hosts smaller programmes relating 
to  Science  in  Society,  Regions  of  Knowledge,  Research  Potential  and  International 
Cooperation and the Coherent Development of Research Policies. 

The budget breakdown for each of these elements is shown below. 

Figure 2: FP7 budget breakdown in € million (EURATOM  FP budget of €2.7 billion over 5 years not included). 

Cooperation; 
32.413

Ideas; 7.510

People; 4.750

JRC; 1.751

Capacities; 
4.097

2.2.2.  Novelties 

FP7 builds on the achievements, good practice and proven instruments of earlier Framework 
Programmes and there is a good deal of continuity both at an operational level and in terms of 
strategic objectives. There are, however, some novelties which represent a significant change 
compared to previous Framework Programmes. These are highlighted below. 

The  European  Research  Council:  The  European  Research  Council  (ERC)  is  the  first  trans-
European funding body set up to support investigator-driven frontier research. It was formally 
launched  in  February  2007.  Its  main  aim  is  to  stimulate  scientific  excellence  by  supporting 
and encouraging the very best scientists, scholars and engineers to be adventurous and to take 
risks in their research. ERC grants are awarded through open competition to projects headed 
by starting and established  researchers,  irrespective  of  their nationality, who are working or 
moving to work in Europe - the sole criterion for selection is scientific excellence. The aim 
here is to recognise the best ideas, and retain and confer status and visibility to the best brains 
in  Europe,  while  also  attracting  talent  from  abroad.  It  currently  operates  two  major  grant 
schemes:  The  ERC  Starting  Independent  Researcher  Grant  scheme  (for  early  career 
researchers) and the ERC Advanced Investigator Grant scheme.  

Joint  Technology  Initiatives  (JTIs):  JTIs  are  one  of  the  flagships  of  FP7.  JTIs  are  public-
private  partnerships  set  up  at  European  level  in  areas  where  industry-driven  research  and 
development  can  help  boost  European  competitiveness  in  key  areas.  They  are  legally 
established bodies (‘Joint Undertakings’), set up on the basis of Article 171 of the EC Treaty. 
Strategic Research Agendas have been developed by the JTIs involving collaboration between 
industry  (including  SMEs),  the  research  community,  civil  society  organisations  and  other 
stakeholders. JTIs arise primarily from the work of European Technology Platforms. In line 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
with the FP7 Cooperation Specific Programme, Council Regulations have been adopted in the 
following five areas on the basis of Commission proposals: 

•  Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) 

•  Embedded Computing Systems (ARTEMIS) 

•  Aeronautics and Air Transport (Clean Sky) 

•  Nanoelectronics Technologies 2020 (ENIAC) 

•  Hydrogen and Fuel Cells (FCH)  

Article  169  Initiatives:  The  Article  169  instrument,  although  introduced  already  under  FP6, 
can also be considered as a novelty. The first application of Article 69 is the European and 
Developing  Countries  Clinical  Trials  Partnership  (EDCTP),  launched  under  FP6.  Based  on 
the  experience  with  and  the  evaluation  of  the  EDCTP  the  Article  169  instrument  is  being 
applied  on  a  broader  basis  and  has  found  its  form  under  FP7,  with  two  initiatives  for  joint 
implementation of national programmes adopted by the European Parliament and the Council 
in 2008, one awaiting adoption and one proposal to be launched during 2009 (for details, see 
section  3.1.2).  An  indicator  of  the  relevance  of these  new  initiatives  to  the  dynamics  of  the 
ERA is the variable integration capacity which each of them is able to display. There is real 
inventiveness  in  combining  national  funds  for  common  objectives,  which  continuously 
enriches the typology of priority-setting and funding methods between groupings of dedicated 
countries. 

Redress Procedure: The quality of Commission evaluations have been consistently rated very 
highly by the experts who take part (see Section 2.8). In order to ensure that this standard is 
maintained,  and that the  evaluation  process is consistent with  the principles of  transparency 
and  equal  treatment  that  underpins  all  Commission  evaluations,  a  formal  redress  procedure 
has been introduced as part of FP7 (see FP7 Rules for Participation6). The procedure also has 
the advantage of formalising, in a more coherent way, the ad hoc approaches for dealing with 
complaints that existed (at least in part) in previous programmes. 

Guarantee  Fund:  The  Guarantee  Fund  is  a  mutual  benefit  instrument  that  establishes 
solidarity  among  participants  in  research  projects.  It  replaces  the  financial  collective 
responsibility between participants that was a feature of FP6. It aims primarily at covering the 
financial risks incurred by the Community and the participants during the implementation of 
the  projects.  It  can  be  viewed  as  a  kind  of  insurance  contract  by  the  participants  in  the 
research project to protect against financial losses that might be incurred. The introduction of 
the  fund  also  allows  the  abolition  of  ex  ante  financial  viability  checks  for  the  majority  of 
participants,  thereby  helping  to  reduce  the  overall  administrative  burden  on  the  research 
community. 

Risk-sharing  Finance  Facility  (RSFF):  It  has  long  been  acknowledged  that  finding  private 
funding sources for R&D projects can be difficult due to a number of factors – the complex 
products and technologies involved,  the market for these technologies and products is often 

6 

Regulation (EC) No 1906/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 
laying down the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities in actions 
under  the  Seventh  Framework  Programme  and  for  the  dissemination  of  research  results  (2007-2013), 
OJ L391, 30.12.2006 

EN 

8 

   EN 

                                                 
unproven, and the intangible assets underpinning them can be difficult for the financial sector 
to manage and evaluate.  

In  response  to  these  difficulties,  the  European  Commission  and  the  European  Investment 
Bank (EIB) have joined forces at the outset of FP7 to set up the Risk Sharing Finance Facility 
(RSFF).  RSFF  is  an  innovative  scheme  to  improve  access  to  debt  financing  for  private 
companies or public institutions promoting activities in the field of research, development and 
innovation (RDI). RSFF is built on the principle of credit risk sharing between the European 
Community  and  the  EIB  and  extends  therefore  the  ability  of  the  Bank  to  provide  loans  or 
guarantees with a low and sub-investment grade risk profile (involving financial risks above 
those normally accepted by investors). The facility will create an additional financing capacity 
of up to € 10 billion in support  of eligible RDI activities.  

2.3.  General Participation Patterns 

This  chapter  aims  to  provide  a  comprehensive  statistical  overview  of  FP7  participation  in 
2007  and  2008.  Data  presented  here  mainly  originate  from  the  CORDA  data  warehouse. 
Further details can be found in the report FP7 Subscription and Performance during the first 
year of implementation7. 

Data Collection and Reporting Methods and Data Quality 

The FP7 proposals and participants database contains information on calls for proposals for which validated evaluation and 
selection  data  is  available  centrally  and  has  already  been  communicated  to  the  respective  FP7  Programme  Committee 
configurations. Call-specific evaluation and selection results enter the system almost on a daily basis and are then validated 
by  the  responsible  Commission  services.  Commission  services  cannot  be  held  responsible  for  the  quality  and  content  of 
applicant-supplied information contained in submitted proposals. 

In  FP7  the  problem  of  the  existence  of  multiple  entries  on  participants  is  addressed  by  the  introduction  of  a  'Unique 
Registration Facility' (URF) for participants. During the first year of implementation of FP7 this new facility was not globally 
implemented and, as a result, reported data was still subject to some measurement error. 

Information on the type of activity and legal status, including SME status, at the proposal submission phase is provided by 
the  applicant  organisation;  this  information  is  not  verified  by  Commission  services  before  the  proposal  is  retained  for 
negotiation. This imposes limitations to the reliability of this type of data: The 2nd Progress Report on SMEs in FP7 reports 
an error rate in the SME self-declared status of 33% in signed grant agreements in 2007. It is also reported that 26,9% of 
Public  Bodies  in  eligible  proposals  are  SMEs,  when  it  is  known  that  only  in  exceptional  cases  can  a  public  body  be 
considered as an SME. It is expected that such inconsistencies will be sorted out with the introduction of more intelligent data 
acquisition system, such as a revised version of the Electronic Proposal Submission System (EPSS). 

Summary statistics on FP7 including proposals, applicants and success rates by funding scheme, applicant activity type and 
nationality are based on (i) eligible proposal and participants data submitted to single stage calls for proposals and (ii) second 
stage  eligible  proposal  and  participants  data  for  FP7  calls  for  proposals  involving  two-stage  proposal  submission  and 
evaluation procedures, without taking into account data from proposals submitted to the first stage of the calls. First stage 
proposals  are,  in  most  cases,  reduced  or  outline  versions  of  the  full  proposal  and  they  do  not  provide  data  on  participants 
other  than  the  coordinator  and,  therefore,  no  meaningful  statistics  on  participant  nationality  or  type  of  activity  can  be 
compiled.  Following  evaluation,  each  proposal  is  associated  to  an  Evaluation  Summary  Report  (ESR)  and  the  resulting 
evaluation  outcome.  Those  proposals  that  pass  to  the  second  stage  of  the  evaluation  are  submitted  in  full  together  with 
complete  participants'  data  thus  allowing  for  statistical  analysis,  and  first  stage  data  are  overwritten  by  second  stage  data. 
Following  the  second  stage  evaluation  each  proposal  is  once  again  associated  with  the  corresponding  ESR,  evaluation 
outcome and, finally, an EC decision. 

The  following  limitations  in  the  availability  of  financial  data  in  "Ideas"  and  "People"  proposals  need  to  be  carefully 
considered when drawing conclusions on the basis of reported statistics: Applicants' data in proposals submitted under the 
"Ideas" (ERC) and "People" (Marie Curie Actions) specific programmes generally refer to hosting organisations rather than 
to individual applicants. In proposals submitted under "Ideas" no activity types are specified for the hosting organisations. In 
proposals  submitted  under  "People"  data  on  total  cost  and  requested  EC  contribution  are  generally  not  provided;  the  only 

7 

European  Commission  (2008):  FP7  Subscription  and  Performance  during  the  first  year  of 
implementation.  Brussels. 
(http://ec.europa.eu/research/reports/2008/pdf/fp7-1st-year-subscription-
performance.pdf) 

EN 

9 

   EN 

                                                 
exception  is  a  limited  number  of  "People"  related  calls  for  proposals  for  Coordination  and  Support  Actions  (CSA),  which 
contain data on total cost and requested EC contribution both at proposal and applicant level. 

2.3.1.  Overall Participation Patterns 

2.3.1.1.  Calls, proposals and grant agreements 

This  report  is  based  on  statistical  data  on  110  calls  for  proposals  concluded8  at  the  time  of 
data extraction (25/02/2009), of which 97 were one-stage calls. These calls attracted 37.698 
applications  for  funding,  about  two  thirds  (24.902)  of  which  were  submitted  to  one-stage 
calls. 

Much of the analysis of participation patterns and success rates in this report is based on the 
dataset of "included proposals". This dataset excludes: 

•  ineligible proposals, i.e. submitted proposals that do not fulfil the formal eligibility criteria 

set by the respective calls for proposals; 

•  duplicates as well as proposals that are withdrawn by the project coordinators; 

•  in the case of two-stage calls, all eligible first stage proposals. 

Almost two thirds (25.419) of all submitted proposals are included and about a fifth (5.520) of 
these retained for funding negotiations. This led to 3.551 signed grant agreements, or 64,3% 
of the retained proposals, so far. Figures on signed grant agreements are continuously updated 
as new grant agreements are added to the CORDA database. 

More  than  a  third  (13.835)  of  all  proposals  were  submitted  under  the  Specific  Programme 
"Cooperation". 45,3% (11.514) of all included proposals and more than a third (2.032) of all 
retained proposals were concentrated in this programme, leading to 1380 grant agreements so 
far. 

The  Specific  Programme  "People"  (Marie  Curie  Actions)  received  23,5%  (8.857)  of  all 
applications and constituted the second most sizeable group of included proposals (7.973 or 
31,4% of the total) and the most sizeable group of retained proposals (2.376 or 43,0% of the 
total). 1304 grant agreements have been signed so far under this Specific Programme. 

The  Specific  Programme  "Ideas"  (European  Research  Council)  received  almost  a  third 
(11.350) of all submitted proposals. Only a quarter (2.594) of the applications were included 
and  467  were  retained  for  funding  negotiations.  Under  this  Specific  Programme  474  grant 
agreements have been signed so far.9 

8 

9 

"Concluded" means  that  data  on  the  evaluation  and  selection outcome  are  available  and have  already 
been communicated to the respective FP7 Programme Committees. 
In this particular case the number of signed grant agreements exceeds that of retained proposal as some 
grant agreements are drawn directly from the reserve list. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

                                                 
Table 2: Submitted, included and retained proposals and success rates. 

SPECIFIC PROGRAMME 

Submitted 

Included 

Retained 

no. 

% 

no. 

% 

no. 

% 

Success 
Rates 

COOPERATION 

13.835 

36,7% 

11.514 

45,3% 

2.032 

36,8% 

17,6% 

IDEAS 

PEOPLE 

CAPACITIES 

EURATOM 

Total 

11.350 

30,1% 

2.594 

10,2% 

467 

8,5% 

18,0% 

8.857 

23,5% 

7.973 

31,4% 

2.376 

43,0% 

29,8% 

3.545 

9,4% 

3.235 

12,7% 

607 

11,0% 

18,8% 

111 

0,3% 

103 

0,4% 

38 

0,7% 

36,9% 

37.698  100,0% 

25.419  100,0% 

5.520  100,0% 

21,7% 

Table 3: Signed grant agreements, participants and funding (in € million) by specific programme. 

SPECIFIC PROGRAMME 

Number of 
grants 

Number of 
participants 

Project 
cost 

EC financial 
contribution 

COOPERATION 

IDEAS 

PEOPLE 

CAPACITIES 

EURATOM 

Total 

1.380 

474 

1.304 

365 

28 

3.551 

14.704 

6.912,7 

4.847,7 

502 

2.463 

3.435 

393 

671,9 

455,4 

842,1 

141,1 

671,2 

451,9 

603,7 

77,4 

21.497 

9.023,2 

6.652,0 

2.3.1.2.  Applicants and budget 

Included  proposals  involved  159.662  applicants  and  a  total  estimated  project  cost  of  €  66,4 
billion with a requested Community financial contribution of € 47,7 billion. After evaluation 
and selection, the number of applicants in retained proposals was reduced to 34.605, the total 
estimated project cost to € 14,1 billion and the requested EC contribution to € 10,1 billion – 
approximately  72%  of  the  total  estimated  project  cost.  Signed  grant  agreements  involve 
21.497 participants with a Community contribution of € 6,7 billion, of which the lion's share, 
namely 73% or € 4,8 billion, goes to projects  under the Specific Programme "Cooperation". 

Table 4: Applicants in included and retained proposals and success rates. 

SPECIFIC PROGRAMME 

Included 

Retained 

no. 

% 

no. 

% 

Success 
Rates 

COOPERATION 

112.616 

70,5%  22.859 

66,1% 

IDEAS 

PEOPLE 

CAPACITIES 

EURATOM 

Total 

3.325 

2,1% 

548 

1,6% 

18.959 

11,9% 

4.794 

13,9% 

23.637 

14,8% 

5.850 

16,9% 

1.125 

0,7% 

554 

1,6% 

159.662  100,0%  34.605  100,0% 

20,3% 

16,5% 

25,3% 

24,7% 

49,2% 

21,7% 

Table 5: Estimated project cost of included and retained proposals and success rates. 

SPECIFIC PROGRAMME 

Included 

Retained 

€ M 

% 

€ M 

% 

Success 
Rates 

COOPERATION 

54.684,4 

82,4% 

11.002,2 

78,0% 

IDEAS 

PEOPLE 

CAPACITIES 

EURATOM 

Total 

4.918,3 

21,4 

6.293,0 

472,9 

7,4% 

0,0% 

9,5% 

0,7% 

883,8 

13,3 

6,3% 

0,1% 

1.947,4 

13,8% 

255,2 

1,8% 

66.390,0 

100,0% 

14.101,9 

100,0% 

20,1% 

18,0% 

62,4% 

30,9% 

54,0% 

21,2% 

EN 

11 

   EN 

Table 6: Requested EC contribution to included and retained proposals and success rates. 

SPECIFIC PROGRAMME 

Included 

Retained 

€ M 

% 

€ M 

% 

Success 
Rates 

COOPERATION 

37.776,8 

79,2% 

7.702,4 

76,5% 

IDEAS 

PEOPLE 

CAPACITIES 

EURATOM 

Total 

4.780,0 

10,0% 

16,8 

0,0% 

868,2 

10,0 

8,6% 

0,1% 

4.852,1 

10,2% 

1.362,8 

13,5% 

280,5 

0,6% 

131,1 

1,3% 

47.706,2 

100,0% 

10.074,5 

100,0% 

20,4% 

18,2% 

59,5% 

28,1% 

46,7% 

21,1% 

In  this  report,  success  rates  are  calculated  as  ratios  of  retained  to  included  proposals 
following  the  FP7  Subscription  and  Performance  during  the  first  year  of  implementation 
report10 as well as the First FP7 Monitoring Report11. The overall success rate for proposals 
submitted under the 110 calls for proposal launched in 2007 and 2008 under FP7 is 21,7%. 

Figure 3: Success rates by Specific Programme. 

70,0%

60,0%

50,0%

40,0%

30,0%

20,0%

10,0%

0,0%

TOTAL

COOPERATION

IDEAS

PEOPLE

CAPACITIES

EURATOM

Proposals

Applicants

EC Contribution

2.3.2.  Participation by funding Scheme 

Data on FP7 participation is aggregated according to the following funding schemes: 

•  Collaborative Projects, including combinations of Collaborative Projects and Coordination 

and Support Actions (CP/CP-CSA) 

•  Networks of Excellence (NoE) 

•  Coordination and Support Actions (CSA) 

10 

11 

European  Commission  (2008):  FP7  Subscription  and  Performance  during  the  first  year  of 
(http://ec.europa.eu/research/reports/2008/pdf/fp7-1st-year-subscription-
implementation.  Brussels. 
performance.pdf) 
European  Commission  (2009):  First  FP7  Monitoring  Report  (Monitoring  2007).  Brussels. 
(http://ec.europa.eu/research/reports/2009/pdf/first_fp7_monitoring_en.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none) 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  Research for the benefit of specific groups and Marie Curie Actions (Support for training 

and career development of researchers) (BSG/MC) 

•  Support  for  frontier  research  (European  Research  Council),  risk  sharing  finance  facilities 

and others (ERC/RSFF/OTH) 

In retained proposals Collaborative projects have by far the largest share in FP7 budget both 
in terms of total project costs (83,2%) and requested EC contribution (79,8%) and the highest 
number  of  applicants  (60,7%).  BSG  and  Marie  Curie  Actions  have  the  highest  number  of 
retained proposals (2.534 or 45,9% of the total). Networks of Excellence, on the other hand, 
have  only  21  retained  proposals  with  404  applicants  and  1,1%  of  total  requested  EC 
contribution. In signed grant agreements the picture is similar: BSG/Marie Curie Actions and 
Collaborative  projects  have  each  about  a  third  of  total  signed  grants  (1.337  and  1.196 
respectively),  but  in  terms  of  numbers  of  participants  and  Community  contribution 
Collaborative projects enjoy the largest share (61,7% and 71,6% respectively). 

Figure 4: Numbers of retained proposals, applicants and EC financial contribution by funding scheme. 

E C  c o nt ribut io n

A pplic a nt s

R e t a ine d pro po s a ls

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

CP/CP-CSA NoE CSA BSG/MC ERC/RSFF/OTH

Figure 5: Numbers of grant agreements, participants and EC financial contribution by funding schemes. 

E C  c o nt ribut io n

P a rt ic ipa nt s

G ra nt  a gre e m e nt s

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

CP/CP-CSA NoE CSA BSG/MC ERC/RSFF/OTH

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
 
2.3.3.  Participation Patterns by Organisations 

2.3.3.1.  Participation by type of activity 

Data  on  the  type  of  activity  of  FP7  participants  follows  a  revised,  compared  to  FP6, 
classification scheme which groups participating organisations in the following 5 categories: 

•  Higher or secondary education (HES) 

•  Private for profit (excluding education) (PRC) 

•  Public body (excluding research and education) (PUB) 

•  Research organisations (REC) 

•  Other (OTH) 

Higher  and  secondary  education  institutes  are  the  main  beneficiaries  of  FP7,  with 
approximately a third of applicants (12.738 or 36,8%) and requested EC funding (€ 3,1 billion 
or  31,3%)  in  retained  proposals.  The  participation  of  the  private  sector  in  FP7  involves  a 
quarter of all applicants (25,3%) and requested EC funding (26%). 

Figure 6:  Requested EC contribution and number of applicants in retained proposals by activity type. 

E C  c o nt ribut io n

A pplic a nt s

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

HES PRC PUB REC OTH

2.3.3.2.  SME participation 

The  average  non-adjusted  share  of  SME  participants  in  retained  FP7  proposals  under  the 
Specific  Programmes  "Cooperation"  and  "Capacities"  is  27,1%  in  terms  of  numbers  of 
applicants  and  22,6%  in  terms  of  requested  Community  contribution.  The  average  adjusted 
participation  shares  in  signed  grant  agreements  under  these  two  Specific  Programmes  are 
13,8% for participants and 10,8% for Community contribution – significantly below the 15% 
target established in FP7. As highlighted by the 2nd Progress  Report  of the FP7 SME Inter-
Service Task Force12, a high percentage of all self-declared SMEs at the proposal submission 

12 

European Commission (2008): 2nd Progress Report on SMEs in the 7th R&D Framework Programme. 
Brussels. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
                                                 
stage  drop  out  of  the  SME  category  after  the  verification  of  their  status  at  the  negotiation 
stage, resulting in the downward adjustment of the figures. This should explain the significant 
discrepancy  between  the  figures  referring  to  retained  proposals  and  grant  agreements,  the 
latter being more reliable. 

2.3.4.  Participation Patterns by Country 

2.3.4.1.  Participation of EU27 Member States 

The following graphs present various aspects of the participation patterns of EU27 Member 
States:  Figure  7  presents  absolute  numbers  of  successful  applicants  and  their  requested  EC 
funding  for  the  27  EU  Member  States;  figure  8  presents  the  requested  EC  contribution  per 
successful applicant for each Member State; figure 9 presents the success rates of applicants 
for each Member State. 

Figure 7: Number of applicants and requested EC contribution in € million by Member State in retained proposals. 

D E

UK

F R

IT

N L

E S

B E

S E

F I

A T

E L

D K

P L

P T

IE

C Z

H U

R O

S I

B G

E E

S K

C Y

LT

LV

LU

M T

0

500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000

3.500

4.000

4.500

5.000

Applicants

EC contribution (€M)

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
Figure 8: Requested EC contribution per applicant in € thousand by Member State in retained proposals. 

450,0

400,0

350,0

300,0

250,0

200,0

150,0

100,0

50,0

0,0

F I

D E

F R

D K N L

S E

UK A T

B E

IT

E S

E L

IE

LU P T

P L C Z

E E

S I

H U C Y

LT

S K R O B G LV M T

EC contribution per applicant (€ K)

Figure 9: Success rates of applicants by Member State. 

30,0%

25,0%

20,0%

15,0%

10,0%

5,0%

0,0%

B E

N L

F R

S E

D K UK

F I

D E

E E

IE

LV

C Z M T A T

E S H U

S K LT

LU P T

IT

P L C Y

S I

E L B G R O

Applicants' success rates

2.3.4.2.  Participation of New Member States 

New  Member  States  participation  represents  9,3%  (3.210)  of  all  applicants  in  retained  FP7 
proposals  and  4,8%  (€  485,9  milli on)  of  total  requested  EC  financial  contribution.  The 
success  rates  are  17,9%  for  applicants  and  13,4%  for  EC  contribution  –  both  considerably 
lower than the EU27 average (21,8% and 21,5% respectively). 

The subscription and performance of the 12 "new" EU Member States (hereafter "EU12") vis-
à-vis the "older" EU Member States (hereafter "EU15") in the "Cooperation" and "Capacities" 
Specific  Programmes  during  the  first  year  of  FP7  implementation  presents  a  mixed  picture 
(see  also  results  of  study  based  on  2007  data13).  While  EU12  participation  in  terms  of 
numbers of submitted and retained proposals is lower than their share of the EU27 research 
workforce, the performance is significantly better when one compares their share of GERD to 
their share of EC contributions. More specifically: 

•  EU12  researchers  represent  14%  of  the  total  EU27  population  of  researchers;  the 
corresponding  shares  of  EU12  applicants  during  the  first  years  of  implementation  of  the 
FP7 are now 9.3% in terms of retained proposals. 

13 

European  Commission  (2008):  Subscription  and  Performance  in  the  FP7  "Cooperation"  and 
"Capacities" Specific Programmes – EU12 vs. EU15. Brussels. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
•  The  EU12  share  of  the  EU27  2006  GERD  is  2,8%  while  the  aggregate  requested  EC 

contribution to EU12 applicants in retained proposals is now 4.8%. 

These  findings  should  however  be  put  in  the  context  of  the  current  S&T  socio-economic 
conditions  in  EU27.  For  example,  in  2006  the R&D  expenditure  per  researcher  (GERD  per 
number of researchers) in EU15 amounted to € 121.000 – four times th at of the corresponding 
EU12 figure of € 31.000.  

Measures  already  taken  that  will  help  to  enhance  participation  rates  of  EU12  in  the 
Framework Programme include efforts put in place by DG RTD in support of a strong NCP 
network, and the establishment of Technology Platforms at the national level that have proven 
to be successful in involving industry in R&D activities.  

It  was  highlighted  that  EU12  is  not  a  homogeneous  group,  which  is  why  it  may  be  more 
pertinent  to  refer  to  low-  and  high-performing  Member  States  in  FP7.  The  reasons  for  low 
performance are manifold and refer for example, to national research landscapes with specific 
problems, to the lack of a competitive research environment at national level, and to problems 
encountered  by  smaller  countries  that  cannot  be  expected  to  be  competitive  in  all  thematic 
fields of the FP.  

2.3.4.3.  Participation of Candidate and Associated Countries 

The  classification  of  countries  according  to  their  relation  with  the  EU  (Member  State, 
Candidate Country, Associated Country) is the same under FP7 as under FP6. However, the 
composition of these country groups has changed with the accession of Bulgaria and Romania 
in  2007,  and  with  the  association  of  Albania,  Serbia,  Montenegro,  and  Bosnia  and 
Herzegovina in 2007 and 2008. These new memberships have only had a marginal effect on 
the aggregate characteristics of their respective groups. 

Candidate  and  Associated  Countries  account  for  8%  of  FP7  participation  in  terms  of 
applicants and 8,4% of FP7 participation in terms of EU financial contribution. They have an 
average success rate of 20,8% for applicants and 18,6% for EC financial contribution – lower 
than  the  EU  Member  State  average  (21,8%  and  21,5%  respectively).  In  this  group  of 
countries,  Switzerland  has  by  far  the  largest  share  of  participation  and  the  highest  success 
rates; the participation of Norway and Israel is also very significant. 

2.3.4.4.  Participation of Third Countries 

FP7 participants from Third Countries represent a small part of the total number of successful 
applicants and receive an even smaller part of the total EC financial contribution – just 5,7% 
and 1,7% respectively. The average success rate of Third Countries in terms of participants is 
equal  to  the  overall  average  (21,7%)  but  considerably  lower  in  terms  of  EC  financial 
contribution (16,1%). 

EN 

17 

   EN 

Figure 10: EC financial contribution and number of applicants by group of countries in retained proposals for FP7 calls. 

E C  c o nt ribut io n

A pplic a nt s  

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

M e m b e r  S t a t e s

C a n di da t e  &  A sso c i a t e d C o un t r i e s

T hi r d C o un t r i e s

Third  country  applicants  participating  in  eligible  proposals  come  from  as  many  as  143 
countries, while those participating in retained proposals come from 97 countries. In this very 
diverse  group,  the  biggest  participant  in  terms  of  EC  financial  contribution  is  the  Russian 
Federation followed by India, China, the USA, South Africa and Brazil, whereas in terms of 
numbers of successful applicants the USA is in the lead (with 348 participations), followed by 
the Russian Federation (235), India (131), China (128), Australia (85), Canada (82) and Brazil 
(81). 

2.3.4.5.  Time to Grant 

Time to grant is defined as the time elapsed between the deadline for submission of proposals 
and the signature of the grant agreement. The time to grant statistics reported here for FP7 are 
based on grant agreements signed by the date of the last data extraction (25/02/2009) and only 
include calls for which at least 70% of the expected grant agreements have been signed. These 
grant  agreements  correspond  to  approximately  two  thirds  (62%)  of  the  total  number  of 
retained  proposals  under  FP7  at  the  time  of  data  extraction.  The  figures  below  are  thus  not 
final but only indicative of the current situation and subject to change. 

Taking into account the limitations described above, the average time to grant overall is 318 
days (median 303 days). The thematic area with the shortest time to grant is ICT (242 days) 
followed by the ERC (289 days) and Marie Curie Actions (297). 

2.4. 

Gender Equality and FP7 

In 1999, during early FP5, the Commission adopted a Communication in which it undertook 
the  commitment  to  develop  a  coherent  approach  towards  promoting  women  in  research 
financed  by  the  European  Communities.14  The  Commission’s  stated  aim  was  to  achieve  at 
least  a  40%  representation  of  women  in  Marie  Curie  scholarships,  Advisory  Groups, 
Assessment Panels and Monitoring Panels of FP5. This target was subsequently expanded to 
include all groups, panels, committees and projects involved in the Framework Programmes. 
The 40% target remained in place for FP6 and is currently also valid for FP7. 

14 

European  Commission  (1999):  Communication  "Women  and  Science:  Mobilising  women  to  enrich 
European research", COM(1999)76. Brussels. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2.4.1.  Patterns of Gender Participation in FP7 

The  CORDA  database  contains  a  considerable  amount  of  data  on  individual  participants  in 
FP7 funded projects for which grant agreements have already been signed, including gender 
identity.  Out  of  an  estimated  total  of  53.687  project  participants  whose  gender  identity  has 
been  recorded  in  the  database,  a  quarter  (25,8%  or  13.831)  is  female.  In  this  population, 
women  represent  29,1%  (3.227)  of  project  coordinators  and  24,9%  (10.604)  of  project 
participants, which implies that women have a relatively stronger presence as coordinators. 

More  than  a  fifth  (21,5%)  of  individuals  characterised  as  "contact  person  for  scientific 
aspects" in signed grant agreements are women. Female participation makes up more than a 
third  (35,4%)  of  participants  in  signed  grant  agreements  in the  category  "fellow",  under  the 
Specific  Programme  "People"  (Marie  Curie  Actions).  This  is  the  category  with  the  highest 
female  participation,  and  it  confirms  the  excellent  track  record  of  Marie  Curie  Actions  in 
achieving balanced gender distribution ratios. Female participation makes up a fifth (20,7%) 
of  participants  in  the  category  "principal  investigator",  which  corresponds  to  ERC  grant 
agreements (Specific Programme "Ideas").  

2.4.2.  Gender  Repartition  in  FP7  Advisory  Groups,  Programme  Committees  and  the 

European Research Area Board (ERAB) 

Figure 11 presents the distribution of women in groups, panels and committees from FP4 to 
FP7.  It  should  be  noted  that  very  limited  data  is  available  for  FP4  and  that  the  information 
available for FP7 is also limited at this stage. 

Figure 11: Share of women in groups, panels and committees (FP4, FP5, FP6, FP7) 

60,0%

50,0%

40,0%

30,0%

20,0%

10,0%

0,0%

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

E v a lua t io n
P a ne ls

E xpe rt
D a t a ba s e s

M o nit o ring
P a ne ls

A dv is o ry
G ro ups

P ro gra m m e
C o m m it t e e s

E UR A B  /
E R A B

For FP7, 15 Advisory Groups15 were set up in summer 2006. A sixteenth Advisory Group (for 
Security) was created in November 2007. 

15 

Health; Food agriculture and biotechnology; ICT; Nanosciences, nanotechnologies, materials and new 
production  technologies;  Energy  +  Euratom;  Environment;  Transport;  Socio-economic  sciences  and 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
                                                 
For  2007,  the  percentage  of  women  in  the  13  Advisory  Groups  managed  by  DG  RTD  was 
36,6%,  while  the  percentage  of  women  in  all  FP7  Advisory  Groups  was  34,1%.  These 
percentages were still under the general target of 40%, but they have been clearly improved 
from  FP6.  Following  a  reduction  of  the  number  of  Advisory  Groups  and  a  membership 
renewal  in  most  groups  in  2008,  the  percentage  of  women  in  the  11  Advisory  Groups 
managed by DG RTD is now 38,5%. These numbers are still slightly below the 40% target, 
but they have been further improved from 2007 to 2008. The percentage of women in all FP7 
Advisory Groups is 34,4%, i.e. almost unchanged compared to 2007.  

The  overall  percentage  of  female  members  of  FP7  Programme  Committees  in  the  first  two 
years of FP7 is 34 %16.  

Throughout its existence, the percentage of female members of the European Advisory Board 
EURAB, the high level advisory board established for FP6, was 33%. The European Research 
Area  Board  ERAB,  the  new  consultative  body  responsible  for  advising  the  EU  on  the 
realisation of the ERA, has 40,9 % of female members. 

At  the  time  of  the  writing  of  this  report,  the  percentage  of  female  members  of  the  ERC 
Scientific Council is 26%. 

2.4.3.  Gender Dimension of Research in FP7 

The  FP7  Decision  states  that  "The  integration  of  the  gender  dimension  and  gender  equality 
will  be  addressed  in  all  areas  of  research".  The  two  previous  sections  refer  to  female 
participation in various bodies and in proposals submitted to FP7. The gender dimension of 
research is rather treated in the Work Programmes. The introduction of the Cooperation Work 
Programmes state that:  

"The  pursuit  of  scientific  knowledge  and  its  technical  application  towards  society 
requires the talent, perspectives and insight that can only be assured by increasing 
diversity in the research workforce. Therefore, all projects are encouraged to have a 
balanced  participation  of  women  and  men  in  their  research  activities  and  to  raise 
awareness on combating gender prejudices and stereotypes. When human beings are 
involved  as  users,  gender  differences  may  exist.  These  will  be  addressed  as  an 
integral  part  of  the  research  to  ensure  the  highest  level  of  scientific  quality.  In 
addition, specific actions to promote gender equality in research can be financed as 
part of the proposal […]."  

In  addition,  the  topics  where  gender  may  be  a  relevant  are  signalled  as  such  in  the  various 
Work Programmes. Finally, applicants have the possibility if they so wish to address gender 
issues (both in research and in terms of female participation) in their proposals. This is then 
taken up at negotiation. Data on how gender issues are tackled at project level are currently 
being collected.  

16 

humanities; Space; People; Research for SMEs; Regions of knowledge; Research potential; Science in 
society; Activities of international cooperation. 
This figure should be understood as representing the overall trend only, given the continuous process of 
updating  the  lists  and  considering  that  during  nominations,  the  gender  of  the  representatives  is  not 
always mentioned. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

                                                                                                                                                         
2.5. 

Quality Assessment of Proposal Evaluation 

In order to receive the independent experts' opinion on the quality of the proposal evaluation 
process  and  procedures,  two  separate  anonymous  on-line  surveys  of  all  experts  who 
participated  in  the  evaluation  of  proposals  during  the  first  and  second  year  of  FP7  were 
carried out in 2007 and 2008. The purpose of the surveys is to receive the experts' opinions on 
the quality of the evaluation process and procedures applied.  

In total 7122 experts were invited to participate in the two surveys. The results are based on 
3963 responses, representing an overall response rate of 56%. 

The data collected give a positive picture of the quality of the evaluation process. Across the 
calls,  96,8  %  of  the  respondents  found  the  quality  of  the  evaluation  overall  satisfactory  to 
excellent. 

Figure 12: Responses to the question "How do you rate the quality of the evaluation overall?" on a scale from 1 (= very poor) to 

5 (= excellent) 

4

73

1

2

3

4

5

Don`t know

15

N/A

14

490

949

2395

Of  the  evaluators  that  had  previously  evaluated  research  proposals  for  national  or 
international  research  funding  schemes,  96,7%  found  the  EU  evaluation  process  similar  or 
better in quality. 

Figure  13:  Responses  to  the  question  "If  you  have  evaluated  research  proposals  before  for  national  or  international  research 
funding schemes, how do you rate the overall quality of the EU process in comparison?" on a scale from 1 (= much 
worse) to 5 (= much better) 

10

151

1

2

3

4

5

Don`t know

110

N/A

567

894

750

1481

In all aspects covered by the surveys, evaluators were generally very satisfied with the way in 
which  the  evaluations  were  conducted,  with  respect  to  impartiality,  confidentiality  and 
fairness.  In  particular,  the  level  of  efficiency  of  the  evaluation  task  has  been  rated 
good/satisfactory/excellent (96,5%). 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
 
There  are  nevertheless  a  number  of  results  pointing  towards  issues  for  attention,  amongst 
them  the  remote  evaluation,  the  available  time,  and  impact  evaluation  criterion  that  is  still 
found the most difficult one to apply.  

An  overwhelming  majority  of  the  experts  (95%)  rates  the  overall  organisation  of  the 
evaluation  satisfactory  to  excellent.  Most  of  the  evaluators  (95%)  found  the  registration 
efficient and welcoming and rated it from satisfactory to excellent. Nevertheless a number of 
comments  and  recommendations  have  been  made  with  respect  to  IT  related  aspects  of  the 
evaluation and other supporting infrastructure.  

2.6.  Redress Procedure 

The  FP7  Rules  for  Participation  stipulate  that  the  Commission  shall  provide  a  redress 
procedure  for  applicants.  The  intention  of  the  legislator  was  to  formalise  the  ad  hoc 
approaches for dealing with complaints that existed in previous programmes. 

In  line  with  these  requirements,  a  redress  procedure  has  been  set  up  that  aims  to  be  both 
efficient and consistent with the principles of transparency and equal treatment that underpins 
all Commission evaluations.  

Following  the  work  of  the  "submission  to  ranking"  working  group,  redress  guidelines  were 
drafted, setting out the more operational aspects of the new procedure. In particular: 

•  The redress committee meets in various configurations according to the different calls for 

proposals. Directorates nominate officials for "jury service". 

•  The  configurations  work  independently,  and  deliver  their  advice  to  the  responsible 
directors.  They  may  take  account  of  possible  comments  from  the  director,  and  from  the 
redress office (see below). 

•  A "redress office" (RO), located in unit RTD/A1, is responsible for registering and tracking 
redress  requests,  supporting  the  committee  configurations,  and  ensuring  that  policy  is 
coherent and consistent over time, based on case histories. 

These guidelines have since been endorsed by the Legal Service, and some of the most salient 
guidelines have been incorporated into the evaluation rules17. 

For FP7 calls launched in 2007 and 2008 (except ERC, see below), the results of the redress 
procedure can be summarised as follows: 

•  50 requests for redress were wholly or partly upheld,  but  did not lead to a re-evaluation, 
because  the  proposal  failed  anyway  for  other  reasons  or  because  the  identified  problem 
was minor and not crucial to the experts' evaluation. 

•  There  were  in  total  11  cases  so  far  leading  to  a  re-evaluation  (0,04  %  of  proposals 

received). 

17 

European Commission (2008): Rules for submission of proposals, and the related evaluation, selection 
and award procedures (Version 3, 21 August 2008), COM(2008)4617. Brussels. 

EN 

22 

   EN 

                                                 
It  has  to  be  noted  however,  that  the  redress  procedure  for  several  of  the  2008  calls  is  not 
concluded yet. 

Problems leading to a re-evaluation were, for example, related to the eligibility of proposals 
(scope,  number  of  participants),  or  to  serious  factual  errors,  or  to  insufficient  specialist 
expertise on the part of the experts. 

In 2007, the ERC put in place redress procedures, following the model established for FP7, 
but with a separate "Ideas" configuration of the redress committee. The ERC now has its own 
formal procedure, including its own redress committee and guidelines. Information on 2007 
and 2008 cases can be found in Section 3.3. 

2.7.  Ethics Reviews 

The  Commission  has  included  in  FP7  procedures  a  thorough  Ethics  Review  process  for  all 
proposals that raise ethical questions and are likely to receive Community funding. The Ethics 
Review  process  safeguards  the  protection  of  fundamental  rights  and  the  respect  of  ethical 
principles. It guarantees that no funding is allocated to research that does not comply with the 
relevant EU legislation and the ethical considerations specified in the Framework Programme. 
The  Ethics  Review  process  is  described  in  some  detail  in  Annex  A  (Ethical  Review 
Procedures)  of  the  "Rules  for  submission  of  proposals,  and  the  related  evaluation,  selection 
and  award  procedures"  (Version  3,  21  August  2008,  COM  (2008)4617).  Furthermore  a  new 
process  of  Ethics  Audit  has  been  initiated  in  order  to  guarantee  that  Community  funded 
research is carried out according to the above mentioned principles. 

The  Ethics  Review  Sector  of  DG  RTD  is  in  charge  of  organising  an  ethics  review  of  those 
proposals that have successfully passed the scientific evaluation step and have been found to 
involve sensitive ethical issues that have not been adequately addressed. The organisation of 
the Ethics Review involves the appointment of the members of the Ethics Review Panels and 
the procedural coordination of the entire evaluation process.  

Research  proposals  involving  interventions  on  human  beings  (surgical  interventions  etc.), 
non-human primates, or human embryos/embryonic stem cells are automatically referred for 
ethical review at EC level.  

In 2007, Ethics Screening had been introduced in order to facilitate the selection of projects 
that  required  Ethics  Review  at  the  EC  level.  In  2008,  the  Ethics  Screening  has  been 
generalised to all programmes including the ERC. The screening is the responsibility of the 
programmes that receive the applications. Screening is mostly conducted by ethics experts. A 
database collecting information on FP7 ethics reviews is being established.  

In  2007  and  2008,  539  ethical  reviews  were  organised  by  the  Ethics  Review  Sector.  The 
project proposals that were reviewed involved a wide variety of issues and belong to different 
research programmes. In total, 174 experts participated in the Ethics Review process. Health 
is the theme with the highest number of ethics reviews. 

No project was stopped as a result of the ethical review, but 126 proposals that were found by 
the  expert  panels  to  have  insufficient  safeguards  in  place  were  requested  to  modify  their 
project according to contractually binding requirements. 

All projects subjected to an ethical review are also fully examined by the relevant Programme 
Committee under its Regulatory Framework. 

EN 

23 

   EN 

3. 

FP7 IMPLEMENTATION – SPECIAL FOCUS 

This  chapter  presents  the  achievements  for  a  number  of  FP7  key  activities  in  more  detail. 
Considering the broad spectrum of FP7 and the wealth of material available, only a selection 
can be presented here. 

Any  reporting  of  the  implementation  of  a  major  research  programme  would  be  incomplete 
without  a  closer  look  at  the  results  obtained  and  the  impacts  achieved.  The  system  of  FP7 
monitoring indicators (see chapter 1) therefore includes a number of key indicators related to 
the output of projects and programmes. It should be noted however, that FP7 started only in 
2007, which implies that this report cannot provide this type of information at this stage.  

3.1.  Reinforcing the European Dimension 

3.1.1.  Implementing the ERA Vision 

Only  by  joint  effort  and  shared  responsibility  across  regional,  national  and  European  levels 
can  research  policy  play  its  full  role  in  underpinning  European  competitiveness  and  in 
attaining the objectives of the Community's Growth and Jobs strategy. The Ljubljana Process, 
launched in May 2008, provides a framework for building a new research policy partnership 
between  the  Member  States,  the  Commission  and  relevant  research  actors.  The  process 
envisages a framework for imparting: political direction to overall ERA policy development; 
ownership  and  commitment  of  Member  States  to  specific  ERA  initiatives  such  as  those 
launched  in  2008;  and  efficient  and  effective  means  for  their  implementation.  At  the 
overarching  level,  the  key  reference  for  the  Ljubljana  Process  and  for  identifying  specific 
actions  is  the  long-term  ERA  2020  vision  adopted  by  the  Competitiveness  Council  in 
December  2008.  This  vision  projects  a  fully-fledged  ERA  by  2020  in  which  attractive 
conditions for doing research and investing in R&D intensive sectors in Europe are ensured 
through optimised  scientific competition, cooperation, and coordination. Community-funded 
research  activities  have  to  be  increasingly  selected  and  assessed  according  to  the  extent  to 
which they contribute to the realisation of this long-term vision for ERA. At the centre of the 
ERA vision is the objective to attain a "Fifth Freedom", as endorsed by the European Council 
in  March  2008.  The  fifth  freedom  envisages  the  free  circulation  of  researchers,  knowledge 
and technology and aims at both the removal of obstacles and the creation of new incentives 
to  stimulate  such  free  circulation  of  knowledge  in  Europe.  The  implication  is  that  those 
aspects  of  the  different  Community  policies  that  in  one  way  or  another  affect  research  and 
knowledge  have  to  be  better  exploited  and  brought  in  line  with  the  overall  objectives  and 
principles of R&D policy in Europe. Establishing the "fifth freedom" and achieving a "single 
market for research" as a priority to respond to the changes introduced by globalisation and 
the need to transform the European Union into a truly modern and competitive society is still 
one of the major challenges. R&D policy and in particular actions undertaken to realise the 
ERA  vision  and  the  free  circulation  of  knowledge  are  also  essential  components  of  the 
structural reforms under the EU's Strategy for Growth and Jobs. 

3.1.2.  FP7 as Driver for ERA 

The scientific and technological objectives of FP7 have been explicitly designed to take into 
account the research needs of all Community policies. This acknowledges the importance of a 
robust  evidence  base  in  policy-making  in  all  fields  and,  more  broadly,  the  contribution  of 

EN 

24 

   EN 

knowledge  production  and  dissemination  to  economic  growth  and  social,  cultural  and 
environmental well-being. 

The overriding aim of FP7 "to contribute to the Union becoming the world's leading research 
area"  applies  as  much  to  mainstream  funding  for  thematic  areas  and  activities  under  the 
Specific Programmes of FP7 as it does to all policy development work under FP7 be it of a 
general (e.g. coherent development of research policies, international co-operation) or specific 
nature  (e.g.  in  thematic  areas).  For  example,  the  Socio-economic  Sciences  and  Humanities 
Programme contributes considerably to the conceptualization of the ERA and related policies 
through the following research activities: 

•  Foresight activity related to the ERA priorities, grand challenges and global issues; 

•  Economics  of  research  and  innovation  (knowledge  generation,  entrepreneurship,  impacts 

of globalisation and delocalisation); 

•  Impact  assessment  of  research  policy  (ex-ante  evaluation  of  research  and  other  EU 

policies); 

•  Making  available  large-scale  data  sets  and  quantitative  tools  and  models  to  researchers 

across Europe; 

•  Support to evidence based ERA related policy-making18. 

Evidence  shows  that,  in  the  absence  of  Community  funding,  transnational  cooperation 
between  research  actors  and  Member  States  remains  sub-optimal  and  develops  at  a  lower 
scale  and  slower  speed  than  would  otherwise  be  the  case.  Substantial  financial  support 
through  FP7  thus  furthers  the  development  of  ERA  via  its  leverage  effects  on  public  and 
private R&D investment, which in turn facilitates structural reforms across Europe towards a 
knowledge-intensive  economy.  In  this  context,  the  3%  R&D  investment  goal,  more  than  a 
purely quantitative target, is an important benchmark for the Member States with significant 
mobilising  effects  for  rethinking  national  R&D  policies  and  programmes.  Similarly,  efforts 
under  FP7  to  give  renewed  impetus  to  ERA  following  the  2007  Green  Paper19  consultation 
promise to have a far-reaching impact via the institution of a new partnership approach to EU 
research  policy  development  and  implementation.  More  specifically,  partnership  initiatives 
are being developed in five non-sector specific areas:  

•  A European partnership for improved career aspects and mobility for researchers in Europe 
(including  better  recruitment,  training,  employment,  working  conditions  and  social 
security);20 

•  A  Recommendation  for  the  management  of  intellectual  property  in  knowledge-transfer 
activities and a code of practice for universities and other public research organisations;21 

18 

19 

20 

The  ERAWATCH  web-based  services  contribute  to  this  objective  (i.e.  ERAWATCH  Research 
Inventory and ERAWATCH Intelligence service) by providing evidence-based policy intelligence and 
analyses  on  national  and  regional  research  policies  actors,  organisations  and  programmes. 
ERAWATCH is a joint undertaking between DG RTD and the JRC. http://cordis.europa.eu/erawatch/ 
European  Commission  (2007):  Green  Paper  on  "The  European  Research  Area:  New  Perspectives", 
COM(2007)161. Brussels. 
European  Commission  (2008):  Communication  "Better  careers  and  more  mobility:  a  European 
partnership for researchers", COM(2008)317. Brussels. 

EN 

25 

   EN 

                                                 
•  Joint  programming  between  EU  Member  States  of  their  public  research  programmes 

through the definition and development of common strategic research agendas;22 

•  A  new  legal  framework  to  assist  Member  States  to  establish  and  fund  pan-European 

research infrastructures;23 

•  A strategic European framework for both the Community and Member States to foster and 

facilitate coherent international science and technology cooperation activities.24 

Though the centre of gravity for action to implement these initiatives is in the Member States, 
the importance of all FP7 actions relevant to these initiatives increases as does the need for 
them  to  be  implemented  as  efficiently  (in  terms  of  management  cost  and  flexibility)  and 
effectively (in terms of impact and structuring and leveraging effects) as possible.  

3.1.2.1.  Mobility of Researchers 

The  Marie  Curie  Actions  for  training,  mobility  and  career  development  of  the  Framework 
Programme  have  since  the  conception  of  ERA  been  increasingly  instrumental  in  supporting 
the Community's mobility strategy and career policy concerning researchers. To support the 
further  development  and  consolidation  of  the  European  Research  Area  (ERA),  this  Specific 
Programme's overall strategic objective is to make Europe more attractive for researchers. It 
aims  to  strengthen,  quantitatively  and  qualitatively,  the  human  potential  in  research  and 
technology  in  Europe,  by  stimulating  people  to  take  up  the  profession  of  a  researcher, 
encouraging  European  researchers  to  stay  in  Europe,  and  attracting  to  Europe  the  best 
researchers  from  the  entire  world.  It  is  implemented  through  a  coherent  set  of  actions, 
particularly taking into account the European added value in terms of their structuring effect 
on the European Research Area.  

The  People  Specific  Programme  is  of  fundamental  significance  for  the  development  of  a 
better grounded, multi- and inter-disciplinary European research career. Through its actions it 
supports  over  4,000  post-docs  annually  directly;  while  career  and  employment  benefits 
through  the  Charter  and  Code25  improve  the  lot  of  countless  researchers  at  all  levels.  The 
commitment for at least 25% of funding to go to International Cooperation means that Marie 
Curie  researchers  travel  to  the  best  research  centres  globally  to  improve  their  skills,  while 
European centres can invite the best global researchers into Europe to share their skills. For 
just  9%  of  the  FP7  budget,  with  its  unique  leverage,  it  supports  about  one  third  of  all  FP7 
participants.  With  that  the  People  Specific  Programme  fully  supports  the  objectives  of  the 
researchers' related ERA-initiatives as proposed by the Commission in 200826, which seek to 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

European  Commission  (2008):  Commission  Recommendation  on  the  management  of  intellectual 
property in knowledge transfer activities and Code of Practice for universities and other public research 
organisations, C(2008)1329. Brussels. 
European  Commission  (2008):  Communication  "Towards  Joint  Programming  in  research:  Working 
together to tackle common challenges more effectively", COM(2008)468. Brussels 
European Commission (2008): Commission Proposal for a Council Regulation on the Community legal 
framework for a European Research Infrastructure (ERI), COM(2008)467. Brussels. 
European  Commission  (2008):  Communication  "A  strategic  European  Framework  for  International 
Science and Technology Cooperation", COM(2008)588. Brussels. 
European Commission (2005): Commission Recommendation on the European Charter for Researchers 
and on a Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers, C(2005)576. Brussels. 
European  Commission  (2008):  Communication  "Better  careers  and  more  mobility:  a  European 
(2008): 
partnership 

researchers",  COM(2008)317.  Brussels. 

/  European  Commission 

for 

EN 

26 

   EN 

                                                                                                                                                         
make  Europe  decisively  more  attractive  for  researchers  and  to  establish  a  balanced  "brain 
circulation" within the EU as well as with Third Countries. 

The grants offered by the European Research Council (ERC, Ideas Programme) are open to 
applicants  of  any  nationality  and  hence  an  important  instrument  to  attract  excellent 
researchers  to  Europe.  Recruitment  of  non-European  nationals  and  the  repatriation  of 
European nationals have been modest to date but are expected to increase significantly as the 
ERC becomes better known globally.  

Apart  from  the  Marie  Curie  Actions  a  number  of  policy  support  initiatives  have  been 
launched  or  reinforced  in  support  of  the  implementation  of  the  European  researchers' 
partnership,  through  for  instance  provisions  for  the  EURAXESS  –  Researchers  in  motion 
activities,  for  data-collection  on  mobility  and  career  patterns  and  for  the  monitoring  and 
evaluation of the partnership.  

In  the  Marie  Curie  Actions  alone,  progress  towards  the  fifth  freedom  has  been  significant 
through  the  increased  accessibility  to  entry  Visas  in  some  MS.  Some  6,000  postgraduates 
have benefited from mobility through these actions in the first two years, and this number is 
set to double by the end of 2010.  

3.1.2.2.  European Universities 

Another important dimension of the further development of ERA concerns the support for the 
development of excellent research institutions in Europe. As a primary source of knowledge 
generation  and  provider  of  applied  knowledge,  European  universities  play  a  key  role  in  the 
deepening of ERA. They invest in high-quality frontier research and demonstrate substantial 
capacity  to  address  new  major  societal  challenges.  These  new  challenges  also  force 
universities to modernise their management structure and research agendas as to become more 
autonomous  research  bodies  able  to  define  long  term  research  strategies,  based  on  greater 
openness  and  accountability  to  society's  needs,  increased  integration  and  strengthening  of 
trans-disciplinary  research  capacities  between  universities  and  other  public  research 
institutions  in  key  competitive  scientific  and  technological  areas,  and  the  establishment  of 
strategic  links  with  industry.  But,  as  pointed  out  by  the  Commission27  and  endorsed  by  the 
Member  States28,  universities  have  still  to  accomplish  their  modernisation  agenda,  facing 
some challenges to be able to fully exploit their potential to contribute to the Lisbon Agenda.  

Though  the  Member  States  are  at  the  forefront  of  this  modernisation  process  of  European 
universities, FP7 plays a catalytic role and enables overall coherence  across  ERA.  EU-level 
activities  aim  at  the  promotion  of  financial  sustainability  of  university-based  research, 
assessment  of  university-based  research  performance,  and  monitoring  of  the  overall 
modernisation  process.  DG  RTD,  in  addition  to  DG  EAC  initiatives,  actively  contributed 
under FP7 to promote the modernisation of universities. DG RTD activities on universities are 
planned as a rolling agenda (2007-2013), where the first phase during the period (2007-2009) 
consisted  in  the  launching  of  Expert  Groups  (EG),  studies  and  take-up  activities  to  identify 
and implement the possible measures to strengthen universities. From 2010 and onwards, the 

27 

28 

Communication  "A  strategic  European  Framework  for  International  Science  and  Technology 
Cooperation", COM(2008)588. Brussels. 
European  Commission  (2006):  Communication  "Delivering  on  the  Modernisation  Agenda  for 
Universities: Education, Research, Innovation", COM(2006)208. Brussels. 
European Council (2007): Council Resolution on modernising universities for Europe's competitiveness 
in a global economy" COMPET 426(2007). Brussels. 

EN 

27 

   EN 

                                                                                                                                                         
second phase of the rolling agenda will focus on the implementation of the action lines of the 
modernisation  agenda  at  university  level  in  areas  such  as  research  quality,  funding  and 
assessment of university-based research, human resources management, partnership with the 
business sector and knowledge sharing. 

3.1.2.3.  Open Method of Coordination (OMC) 

Contributing  to  the  development  of  ERA  as  an  overarching  Community  policy,  the  Open 
Method of Coordination (OMC) aims at increasing the coherence of national research policies 
in  an  intergovernmental  way.  The  OMC  is  supervised  by  the  Scientific  and  Technical 
Research  Committee  (CREST)  and  focuses  on  Member  States  learning  from  each  other, 
exchanging  experience,  and  identifying  good  practice,  with  the  support  of  the  Commission 
under  the  Coherent  Development  of  Research  Capacities  programme.  As  CREST  is 
increasingly focusing the OMC on ERA related topics, it carries out a yearly mutual learning 
exercise based on the Lisbon National Reform Programmes of the Member States, focusing 
on  progress  towards  the  3%  R&D  investment  target  and  the  role  of  national  policies  in 
building ERA. The OMC-NET scheme is a specific FP7 action supporting the OMC and aims 
at facilitating the coordination of research policies across Europe, supporting mutual learning 
and evidence based policy making and coordination amongst more limited groups of Member 
States and regions. 

In  addition  to  cross-cutting  policy  themes,  it  is  also  important  to  pursue  a  sector-specific 
approach to developing ERA by taking account of sector-specific parameters and constraints 
and the variable diversity of the European research landscape across different sectors. Under 
FP7,  an  increasing  number  of  sector-specific  assessments  of  progress  made  towards  the 
realisation  of  ERA  permit  a  better  identification  and  design  of  actions  aimed  at  rectifying 
deficiencies.  In  fact,  such  assessments  are  necessary  prerequisites  for  establishing  optimum 
policy rationales or intervention logics for research support in specific areas and for the focus 
and structure of associated programmes. 

3.1.2.4.  The ERA-NET scheme 

The  objective  of  the  ERA-NET  scheme  is  to  enhance  coordination  of  national  or  regional 
research programmes in the Member States and Associated States. This is done either via the 
networking of research programmes, or their mutual opening. By improving the coordination 
of such research programmes across Europe, the scheme contributes to the structuring of the 
European  Research  Area.  The  scheme  also  enables  national  systems  to  exchange  good 
practices in programme management and take on tasks collectively that they would not have 
been able to tackle independently. From the onset of FP7, the scheme became decentralised, 
although it is still implemented as a coordinated call. Furthermore the ERA-NET Plus actions 
have been introduced as a new element to the ERA-NET scheme. They allow – in a limited 
number of cases – to provide additional EU financial support to facilitate joint transnational 
calls for proposals between national and/or regional programmes. They provide an incentive 
to the programmes pooling their resources to reach a higher level of integration by stipulating 
agreed standards for proposal evaluation and selection. 

Under  FP7  a  total  number  of  31  ERA-NET  actions  and  eight  ERA-NET  Plus  actions  have 
been selected, further 11 ERA-NETs and one ERA-NET Plus are expected in response to the 
2009 calls. Together with the 70 ERA-NET actions launched under FP6, these actions gather 
more than 500 national and regional programme owners (typically ministries) and programme 
managers  (such  as  research  agencies  and  research  councils).  Most  ERA-NETs  have 
management  boards  where  these  key  actors  of  the  European  Research  Area  are  daily 

EN 

28 

   EN 

interacting to develop joint actions and take decisions in partnerships orienting their national 
programmes and structuring the ERA. To further support the development of this community 
of  ERA  actors  and  the  implementation  of  the  ERA-NET  scheme,  two  dedicated  initiatives 
have  been  launched  by  the  Commission:  the  ERA-NET  Learning  Platform  and  the 
NETWATCH  system.  The  NETWATCH  system  is  operated  through  a  collaborative 
undertaking between DG RTD and the JRC. 

The  ERA-NET  Learning  Platform  will  provide  a  framework  geared  towards  common 
guidelines  for  procedures  and  practices  across  all  joint  calls  and  programmes  launched  by 
ERA-NETs.  The  ultimate  aim  would  be  two-fold:  to  (1)  reduce  "transaction  costs"  for  the 
participation  in  cross  border  programme  cooperation  and  integration,  and  (2)  to  increase 
efficiency and stability of call implementation of multiple ERA-NETs towards a user friendly 
system, namely for the researcher participating in transnational research cooperation, ensuring 
a submission and selection of highest quality proposals.  

NETWATCH will create a central information platform on European transnational Research 
and Technological Development (RTD) programme cooperation. It will provide RTD policy 
makers with a strategic intelligence tool to monitor the effectiveness of RTD policy measures 
in  programme  cooperation  and  their  contribution  to  reaching  the  goals  of  the  Ljubljana 
Process. 

3.1.2.5.  Joint Programming 

Joint  Programming  is  a  new  approach  to  public  research,  which  was  proposed  by  the 
Commission in the 2008 Communication Towards Joint Programming in Research29. It is a 
structured and strategic process whereby Member States agree on a voluntary and à la carte 
basis  common  visions  and  Strategic  Research  Agendas  (SRA)  in  a  partnership  approach  to 
addressing major societal challenges. 

Joint  Programming  is  not  about  asking  for  more  money  from  Member  States  or  for  more 
power at EU level. It is not a new instrument for Community research and therefore does not 
start  with  Community  funding.  However,  when  and  if  Member  States  agree  to  commit  to 
developing  Strategic  Research  Agendas  together  and  to  defining  common  objectives,  the 
Commission,  as  a  member  of  a  High  Level  Group  identifying  such  initiatives  in  Joint 
Programming, will participate in selecting with Member States the best instruments to address 
the identified major societal challenges. 

FP7  contributed  to  the  debate  on  Joint  Programming  by  driving  national  authorities  into 
situations forcing their points of view to consider the benefits of duly planned and coordinated 
joint  research  investments.  In  particular,  the  ERA-NET  scheme,  by  fostering  cooperation 
actions which altogether launched more than 150 Joint Calls between programmes managed 
by  Member  States,  thus  mobilising  more  than  800  M€  of  national  and  regional  research 
funding, showed that there was much potential for joint activities. 

The ERA-NET scheme also illustrated how it was possible for Member States to have a Joint 
Programming  approach  in  determining  topics  for  joint  calls.  This  might  even  involve  some 
Community funding as practised in the first ERA-NET Plus actions launched under FP7.  

29 

European  Commission  (2008):  Communication  "Towards  Joint  Programming 
COM(2008)468. Brussels. 

in  Research", 

EN 

29 

   EN 

                                                 
FP7  also  demonstrated  the  benefits  of  and  methodology  to  be  used  for  designing  and 
implementing  large  cooperation  at  programme  level  such  as  the  SET  plan  and  Art.169 
initiatives. 

An  important  element  for  Joint  Programming  are  framework  conditions  that  should  be 
satisfied prior to embarking  on  joint  actions and initiatives. Here too, FP7 is supporting the 
development  of  such  framework  conditions  through  the  ERA-NET  scheme,  which  fostered 
the  development,  for  each  Joint  Call,  of  its  own  ad  hoc  framework  conditions.  The  ERA 
Learn support action and the ERA-NET learning platform, set-up by the Commission, should 
allow the identification and communication of the most appropriate ones. 

A multi-factorial analysis of the impact from the ERA-NET scheme so far and the diffusion 
of the information  gathered  on cooperation and collaboration between national and  regional 
programmes  through  the  ERA-NETWATCH  tool  should  further  promote  examples  of 
adequate Framework Conditions.  

Finally, support and coordination actions in various themes will be paramount for developing 
framework conditions such as a coherent approach to foresight, peer review, IPR protection, 
etc. 

3.1.2.6.  Article 169 Initiatives 

Two  Article  169  initiatives  for  joint  implementation  of  national  programmes  involving  EC 
participation have been adopted by the European Parliament and the Council in 2008, namely 
Ambient Assisted Living (AAL) and EUROSTARS. The Ambient Assisted Living (AAL) Joint 
Programme  currently  involves  20 Member States  and 3 Associated Countries with financial 
support  from  the  European  Community.  It  covers  market-oriented  R&D  on  ICT-based 
solutions  for  ageing  well  with  a  time  to  market  of  2-3  years,  with  a  particular  focus  on 
involving  SMEs  and  developing  the  significant  business  potential.  EUROSTARS  is  a  joint 
research  programme  for  research-performing  SMEs  and  their  partners.  It  is  expected  to 
stimulate  SMEs  to  lead  international  market-oriented  collaborative  research  and  innovation 
projects by easing access to support and funding. Thirty-one countries currently participate in 
the  EUROSTARS  Programme  through  the  EUREKA  network.  Work  concerning  both 
initiatives currently focuses on the General Agreement and the Annual Financing Agreement 
between  the  Commission  and  the  Dedicated  Implementation  Structures  (DIS)  that  receive 
delegation for managing the EC budget earmarked for the initiative in an indirect centralised 
way.  The  first  calls  for  proposals  have  been  already  closed  with  an  immediate  high 
participation level. 

Two more Article 169 initiatives are expected to be decided later in the course of FP7. The 
Commission  proposal  for  EMRP,  in  the  field  of  metrology  has  been  adopted  in 
December 2008; inter-institutional discussions are ongoing with a view to a Decision of the 
European  Parliament  and  the  Council  in  the  first  half  of  2009.  The  development  of  the 
BONUS initiative, which focuses on research in the Baltic Sea area, is continuing, being of 
importance  to  support  the  implementation  of  the  marine  strategy  directive  being  the 
environmental pillar of the European Maritime Policy.  

3.1.2.7.  Research Infrastructures 

One essential area of science that has a global dimension and lends itself particularly well to 
international  cooperation  is  the  development  and  use  of  research  infrastructures.  In  Europe, 
the European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures (ESFRI) has taken the first steps in 

EN 

30 

   EN 

this  direction  by  establishing  a  Roadmap  for  new  Research  Infrastructures  of  pan-European 
interest,  which  have  the  potential  to  become  global.  FP7  activities  (through  different 
Preparatory  Phase  projects)  help  to  develop  a  more  structured  approach  to  support 
international  level  discussions  and  to  jointly  develop  global  research  infrastructure  projects 
that  require  international  cooperation  in  order  to  be  realised  (e.g.  LIFEWATCH  on 
biodiversity,  the  Integrated  Carbon  Observation  System  and  the  Square  Kilometre  Global 
Radio Astronomy Array). Another example is the GÉANT infrastructure, encompassing now 
36 countries. GÉANT's total communication capability is now well beyond 1000 Gb/s, and it 
connects over 30 million researchers in 34 European countries and links to a number of other 
world regions. 

The  Commission  launched  a  specific  initiative  in  2008  for  a  regulation  at  European  level 
favouring the setting-up of new pan-European research infrastructures30. Considering that the 
research  infrastructures  needed  in  Europe  to  stay  at  the  leading  edge  of  knowledge  creation 
are becoming increasingly complex and expensive, often placing those beyond the reach of a 
single nation, joint actions between Member States are necessary. Until now there was a clear 
absence of an adequate legal framework, which has been a major difficulty for Member States 
to  join  forces.  The  proposed  regulation  helps  the  new  entities  to  be  created  to  have  a  legal 
personality recognised in all Member States, provides flexibility for Member States to decide 
the main rules in the statutes, and proposes simplification-related provisions such as the one 
on exemption of infrastructures from VAT and excise duties.  

To address the need to increase investment in research, in particular research infrastructures, 
and to combine in the most efficient way all available public and private resources (Member 
States, industry, European Investment Bank (EIB), Structural Funds, FP7, CIP etc.) and also 
to  enable,  inter  alia,  the  timely  construction  of  needed  new  research  infrastructures,  the 
Commission  prepared  during  2008  A  practical  guide  to  EU  funding  opportunities  for 
research,  development  and  innovation:  Synergies  in  funding  between  the  7th  Framework 
Programme for Research, Competitiveness & Innovation programme and Structural Funds31. 

3.2. 

Supporting Sustainable Development and Responding to Societal and 
Interdisciplinary Needs and Challenges 

As the EU faces new major societal challenges such as energy, climate change, sustainability, 
health,  and  ageing  population,  it  is  crucial  that  research  funding  and  policy  development 
under FP7 responds fully to society's needs. R&D has to be more explicitly and systematically 
driven by these "grand challenges" for which a determined, European-scale effort is essential 
to bring about decisive progress.  

The  upcoming  EU  budget  review  provides  an  opportunity  to  stress  the  added  value  of 
Community  support  in  the  field  of  R&D  and  its  crucial  importance  for  attaining  the  EU's 
objectives on growth and jobs. The crucial role of R&D also explains the need for continued 
improvement  of  the  FP's  delivery  mode  in  terms  of  quality  and  effectiveness  of  research 
outcomes, implementation, and management. 

30 

31 

European Commission (2008): Commission Proposal for a Council Regulation on the Community legal 
framework for a European Research Infrastructure (ERI), COM(2008)467. Brussels. 
European  Commission  (2008):  Competitive  European  Regions  through  Research  and  Innovation. 
Practical Guide to EU funding Opportunities for Research and Innovation. Brussels. 

EN 

31 

   EN 

                                                 
In order to illustrate the various activities as well as the types of achievements and some first 
impacts  generated  through  FP7,  a  number  of  key  topics  are  briefly  presented  here.  This 
selection  is  meant  to  be  illustrative  only,  it  is  not  intended  to  be  representative  of  the  large 
number  of  FP7  activities,  content-wise  and  policy-wise,  which  have  been  launched 
successfully and have already contributed to achieving the objectives of FP7. 

3.2.1.  Facing the Challenges of the Knowledge Triangle 

More coherence is needed between different policy tools related to the knowledge triangle of 
research,  innovation  and  education.  This  implies  the  need  for  an  optimal  coordination  and 
more  consistency  both  between  national  and  Community  funding  and  between  the  different 
Community funding instruments and their objectives. 

With a budget of € 50 billion for the period 2007- 13, FP7 is one of the three main sources of 
EU funding for research and innovation; the others being the Structural Funds (SF)  and the 
Competitiveness  and  Innovation  Framework  Programme  (CIP).  For  the  period  2007-13,  the 
Structural Fund have allocated an amount of € 86 billion in support of innovation in a broad 
sense  –  including  RTDI32,  entrepreneurship,  innovative  ICT  and  support  for  related  human 
resource development – while the allocation just for core RTDI amounts to € 50 billion; equal 
to FP7. For the same period the funding available under the CIP is € 3.6 billion.  

When operating separately, each of these funds makes an important contribution to economic 
development and the improvement of EU competitiveness. However, significant opportunities 
also  exist  to  exploit  the  potential  for  synergies  through  their  complementary  use.  The 
importance of such synergies has been increasingly recognised. As a result, the Commission 
adopted,  in  August  2007,  a  Communication  on  "Competitive  European  Regions  through 
Research  and  Innovation"33.  The  Communication  took  stock  of  the  current  situation  in  the 
domain of EU funding for research and innovation and called on Member States and regions 
to make more effective use of EU research, innovation and cohesion policies and instruments. 

The Communication also committed the Commission to produce a guide to accessing funding 
for  research  and  innovation  under  the  three  instruments.  This  is  now  available  as  the 
"Practical  Guide  to  EU  funding  for  research  and  innovation"34  which  provides  a  concise 
description of the three funding sources, explains how they can in practice be combined and 
provides  policy  makers  with  advice  on  setting  up  mechanisms  at  the  national  and  regional 
levels to foster co-ordinated access to the different instruments.  

The  Regions  of  Knowledge  and  Research  Potential  specific  regional  actions  under  FP7  can 
make  a  contribution  to  the  promotion  of  synergies.  Actions  under  Regions  of  Knowledge 
promote  the  development  of  regional  research  driven  clusters  involving  the  triple  helix  of 
businesses,  research  entities  and  the  public  authorities.  Requesting  from  the  participating 
regions the design of a Joint Action Plan in R&D in order to support their regional economic 
growth,  this  programme  is  catalytic  tool  in  order  to  use  efficiently  available  sources  of 
funding  at  EU,  national  and  regional  levels.  Actions  under  Research  Potential  help  develop 
the  capacity  of  research  entities  in  the  Convergence  regions  and  complement  the  support 
available under cohesion policy.  

32 
33 

34 

RTDI - Research, Technological Development and Innovation 
European Commission (2007): Communication "Competitive European Regions through Research and 
Innovation", COM(2007)474. Brussels. 
European  Commission  (2008):  Competitive  European  Regions  through  Research  and  Innovation. 
Practical Guide to EU funding Opportunities for Research and Innovation. Brussels. 

EN 

32 

   EN 

                                                 
There is an estimated number of well over 20 million SMEs in Europe. They are employing 
around 75 million people (in some key industries accounting for as much as 80% of all jobs), 
thus being responsible for the creation of one in every two jobs. In some regions, SMEs are 
practically the only private-sector employer. This underlines their social and their economic 
importance,  recognised  in  the  FP7.  However,  less  than  10%  of  all  European  SME's  are 
leading  technology  users  and  less  than  3%  are  technology  pioneers,  and  SME's  are  often 
minority partners in the relatively large FP7 projects. As indicated in the 2nd Progress Report 
on SMEs in FP735, SMEs are attracted to participate in FP7 in higher numbers than in any of 
the  previous  Framework  Programmes.  They  also  receive  a  higher  level  of  funding  for  their 
participation compared to FP6. Nevertheless, reaching SME's with no R&D capacity remains 
a  priority  for  a  wide  based  realisation  of  the  competitiveness  targets  and  represents  a 
particular  challenge.  Further  incentive  for  SME  participation  should  therefore  focus  on 
creating  the  right  boundary  conditions  for  SMEs  and  their  research  partners  to  make  SME 
participation  in  FP7  more  attractive.  It  may  be  necessary  to  create  a  single  SME  dedicated 
programme  encompassing  all  types  of  SME  with  a  major  focus  on  innovative  and  research 
capacity building. 

The  new  partnership  with  Member  States  on  the  Researchers  Careers  promises  real  and 
lasting  benefits  for  the  Research  profession,  and  the  mobility  of  knowledge  throughout 
Europe  and  the  world.  A  major  challenge  is  to  create  a  high  quality  workforce  of  a 
sufficiently  strategic  size  that  can  undertake  multi-disciplinary  research  at  the  head  of  the 
value added chain. The Marie Curie Actions train researchers in wider skills that help prepare 
the  researcher  for  a  mobile,  inter-sector  career  while  honing  their  research  skills  by  either 
going to the best centres globally, or bringing the best researchers into Europe to share their 
knowhow. 

The European Research Council (ERC) offers the opportunity to young researchers to make 
the transition to an independent research career. Established researchers have the opportunity 
to benefit not only from the prestige attached to being awarded an ERC grant but also from 
the prestige in achieving the ERC's quality threshold even if they fail to secure funding. 

FP7  activities  are  complemented  by  the  European  Institute  of  Innovation  and  Technology 
(EIT)  that  has  been  launched  last  year.  The  mission  of  the  EIT  is  to  explore  excellence  in 
entrepreneurship education, research and business for world class innovation. The EIT aims at 
boosting  innovation  in  Europe  by  pooling  together  excellent  resources,  allowing  innovative 
businesses, research organisations and higher education institutions to interact with each other 
in  new  ways  and  to  exploit  fully  their  creative  potential  for  finding  new  solutions  to  major 
societal  challenges.  This  is  done  by  the  creation  of  highly  integrated,  excellence-driven 
partnerships, known as Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs). KICs bring together 
the three elements of the knowledge triangle and are composed of businesses, entrepreneurs, 
universities,  research  institutes  and  technology  centres  that  will  produce  new  innovation 
models and inspire others to emulate them. The EIT is still in the process of being set up. The 
first KICs are expected to become operational in 2010 and make explicit the role of research 
and innovation to address new challenges. 

35 

European Commission (2008): 2nd Progress Report on SMEs in the 7th R&D Framework Programme. 
Brussels. 

EN 

33 

   EN 

                                                 
3.2.2.  FP7 Supporting Sustainable Development 

Besides  aiming  to  strengthen  the  scientific  and  technological  bases  of  Community  industry, 
FP7  seeks  as  well  to  support  sustainable  development.  It  is  explicitly  recognised  that  the 
overarching  aim  of  the  Cooperation  Specific  Programme,  by  far  the  largest  Specific 
Programme of FP7, is to contribute to sustainable development. 

The  renewed  EU  Sustainable  Development  Strategy  (SDS)36  recognises  the  need  to 
strengthen research and technological development in helping to translate the key challenges 
and  objectives  of  the  strategy  into  concrete  action,  and  to  promote  a  forward-looking  and 
integrated approach to sustainability. 

It is only through research that Europe will be able to cope simultaneously with sustainability 
and competitiveness. Also, the ERA vision 2020 calls for the European Research Area to be 
"firmly rooted in society and responsive to its needs and ambitions in pursuit of sustainable 
development".  The  challenge  ahead  is  to  build  on  the  strong  sustainability  potential  of  FP7 
and to engage Member States in a collective exercise in order to transform this vision into a 
concrete reality. This should ensure that research throughout the European Union, and in its 
international cooperation, is fully harnessed to providing sustainable solutions, such as clean 
production, sustainable agriculture and fisheries, low-carbon energy and transport, sustainable 
cities, integrated coastal zone management, maritime spatial planning, etc. and to increasing 
our knowledge  of the  challenges  in  the field of environment,  including  climate change, and 
our ability to cope with them. 

FP7 is tailored to allow EU research to live up to the pervasive and multifaceted expectations 
for R&D in the SDS, and hence well equipped to promote sustainable development. 

FP7  is  fully  contributing  to  the  7  key  challenges  of  the  renewed  Sustainable  Development 
Strategy. Across the ten Themes of the Cooperation Specific Programme, 59% percent of the 
topics in the three first waves of work programmes (2007, 2008 and 2009) aim to contribute 
to  one  or  more  sustainability  objectives.  For  the  first  two  years  (2007  and  2008),  this  has 
resulted in a share of 44% of the total budget being allocated to SD-related research. The main 
contributors  are  the  themes  Environment,  including  climate  change,  Energy  and  Food, 
Agriculture  and  Biotechnology.  But  the  other  Themes  are  also  contributing  by  funding 
significant levels of SD-relevant research. 

Wherever  necessary,  joint  calls  are  organised  to  allow  joining  efforts  from  several  Themes. 
This  has  been  the  case,  for  example,  for Biorefineries,  for  Water  Technologies,  for  Climate 
Change  and  Conflicts,  for  ICT,  to  name  only  a  few  examples  (see  also  below).  The  JTIs 
launched represent also key elements of the renewed SDS (see section 3.4). 

Several  examples,  from  a  number  of  FP7  Themes  or  cross-cutting  Activities  and  to  be 
understood as snapshots of a much broader spectrum, are presented below. 

3.2.2.1.  Environment 

Environmental  issues  represent  one  of  the  major  challenges  of  today's  world.  All  human 
activities  have  an  impact  on  the  environment  and  consequently  most  societal  issues  are 
directly  or  indirectly  linked  to  the  environment.  With  the  mainstreaming  of  environmental 
issues  in  FP7,  this  is  valid  for  all  FP  activities.  In  the  past  two  years,  environmental 

36 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2005/com2005_0658en01.pdf  

EN 

34 

   EN 

                                                 
consequences of human action have become increasingly important on the political agenda at 
Member States, European Union and World level. Furthermore, the financial crisis puts more 
pressure  to  find  new  systemic  solutions  to  turn  the  challenges  into  economic  opportunities. 
Economically and socially feasible measures that do not neglect their environmental impacts 
need  to  be  identified  and  put  in  motion.  Research  is  crucial  to  understand  eco-systems 
behaviours, identify impacts of human action and inaction, and find and implement solutions.  

Activities  under  the  FP7  Environment  Theme  have  strongly  contributed  to  addressing  these 
challenges: 

•  Strong  contribution  to  EU  policies,  e.g.  to  the.  Climate  Action  and  Renewable  Energy 
Package,  the  Floods  Directive,  the  Droughts  and  Water  Scarcity  Communication,  the 
Communication  and  Action  Plan  on  Disaster  Prevention  and  Early  Warning,  the 
Environmental and Health Action Plan, the Environmental Technologies Action Plan, the 
Sustainable Consumption and Production and Sustainable Industrial Policy Action Plan.  

•  The 2008 Commission Communication on A European Strategy for Marine and Maritime 
Research  highlights  the  importance  of  integration  between  established  marine  and 
maritime research disciplines in order to reinforce excellence in science and to boost our 
knowledge  of  the  oceans  and  our  ability  to  manage  sea-related  activities  in  a  sustainable 
way.  This  new  strategy,  which  is  a  key  pillar  within  the  European  Maritime  Policy,  was 
welcomed  by  the  Competitiveness  Council  of  2  Dec  2008  where  it  was  recognised  as  a 
significant  progress  towards  the  development  of  the  ERA.  Already  in  the  2009  Work 
Programme,  a  collection  of  11  marine  and  maritime  topics  have  been  open  under  the 
common  umbrella  of  "Sustainable  use  of  seas  and  oceans",  thus  representing  a  first  step 
towards  a  more  integrated  approach  to  marine  and  maritime  research  under  FP7.  The 
Commission  announced  the  launching  in  2009-2010  of  cross-thematic  joint  calls  in  the 
field  of  marine  and  maritime  sciences  across  several  themes  of  FP7,  addressing  major 
research  topics  requiring  a  cross-thematic  approach  such  as  climate  change  and  oceans, 
impact  of  human  activities  on  coastal  and  marine  ecosystems,  marine  biodiversity  and 
biotechnology, continental margins and deep sea, exploitation of marine renewable energy 
resources.  Guiding  principles  are  the  cross-sectoral  approach,  multi-disciplinarity  and 
integration between disciplines, as well as the emphasis on ambitious projects. 

•  Strong support to international initiatives, i.e. the International Panel on Climate Change, 
the  Global  Earth  Observation  System  of  Systems  (GEOSS),  the  Biological  Diversity 
convention. 

•  Promotion  of  environmental  consideration  in  the  pluridisciplinary  and  cross-thematic 

research through joint calls with other FP7 Cooperation Themes, i.e. biorefineries. 

•  Enhanced stakeholder participation and thereby possible uptake of innovative solutions in 
society,  e.g.  through  the  implementation  of  the  new  Research  for  the  benefit  of  specific 
groups – CSO (Civil Society Organisations) funding scheme, for which the Environment 
Theme is pioneer. 

Among the many achievements and success stories are: 

•  Multi-scale  analysis  of  biological  diversity  and  development  of  economic  activities  from 

ecosystem services. 

EN 

35 

   EN 

•  Promotion of European excellence in key domains to foster the implementation of Global 

Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS). 

•  Support to the development of environmental technologies in the areas of water treatment 
and  water  and  soil  rehabilitation  and  protection,  with  clear  economic,  environmental  and 
social potentials impacts. 

•  Enhanced  links  with  the  UN  International  Panel  on  Climate  Change  to  foster  EU 
contribution  to  future  Assessment  Reports,  including  strong  advocacy  for  timely 
publication of results of FP7 projects. 

•  Launch  of  the  Sustainable  Development  Network  in  the  Commission  to  maintain  the 

attention in the Framework Programme on the objectives of this strategy. 

•  Launch  of  new  ERANETs  in  the  field  of  Environmental  research,  including  the 

Environment and Health area. 

3.2.2.2.  Energy 

The availability of clean, dependable and affordable energy is one of the major challenges in 
Europe and at the core of public interest. The Strategic Energy Technology (SET) Plan37 is an 
integral part of the European energy policy. In line with the objectives of the energy package, 
the  SET-Plan  sets  out  a  series  of  'key  technology  challenges'  for  the  next  10  years,  both  to 
meet short-term targets (2020 time horizon) and to prepare the ground for meeting the even 
tougher longer-term challenges (2050 time horizon). 

The SET plan aims at accelerating the development and wide-scale application of low-carbon 
energy technologies for the achievement of the  EU's set energy and climate goals for 2020, 
and at positioning the European industry in a leading position worldwide while contributing 
to the transition to a low-carbon economy by 2050. 

This  will  be  done  through  an  integrated  approach  from  the  birth  of  the  idea  to  its 
commercialisation,  seeking  to  address  simultaneously  the  three  pillars  of  the  Community 
energy policy: security of supply, sustainability and competitiveness. 

The implementation of the SET Plan will evolve around four dimensions:  

•  Strategic  planning:  Steering  Group  of  Member  States  (to  drive  the  process),  European 
Energy Technology Information System (SETIS) (mapping of energy research activities in 
Europe), 2009 Technology Summit (to bring together and engage all stakeholders in the 
entire innovation system, from industry to customers). 

•  Effective 

implementation:  European 

led 
programmes),  European  Energy  Research  Alliance  (EERA)  (Research  led  programmes), 
Networks  of  the  future  (to  optimise  and  harmonise  the  development  of  low  carbon 
integrated energy systems across the EU and its neighbouring countries). 

Initiatives 

Industrial 

(Industry 

(EEI) 

•  International cooperation: Cooperation with Third Countries will be an integrated part of 
the  SET  Plan  activities  to  be  addressed  in  the  overall  Strategic  European  Framework  for 

37 

European  Commission  (2007):  Communication  "A  European  strategic  energy  technology  plan  (SET-
plan)", COM(2007)723. Brussels. 

EN 

36 

   EN 

                                                 
International S&T Cooperation (mapping of cooperation activities between EU and Third 
Countries,  analysis  of  scope,  coherence  and  complementarity  of  various  activities, 
identification of common priorities and proposals for implementation, impact assessment). 

•  Identification of resources via a Communication on financing low carbon technologies in 
summer 2009: The Communication will address resource needs and sources, examining all 
potential  avenues  to  leverage  private  investment,  including  private  equity  and  venture 
capital, enhance coordination between funding sources and raise additional funds. 

The  emphasis  will  be  notably  put  on  the  establishment  of  the  European  Energy  Research 
Alliance which should define and implement future joint programmes for basic research and 
also  on  the  implementation  of  six  new  European  Industrial  Initiatives  which  should  define 
industry-led  programmes  (wind,  solar,  CCS  (carbon  capture  and  storage),  grids,  bio  energy 
and fission). 

The European Industrial Initiatives together with the Alliance are the most visible, concrete 
part of the SET-Plan. The Initiatives and the Alliance are the places to work with the Industry 
and  the  Research  Community  to  accelerate  the  development  of  strategic  low  carbon 
technologies.  Since  the  adoption  of  the  SET  Plan  in  November  2007  important  progresses 
have been achieved: 

•  The  European  Industrial  Initiatives  are  progressing  at  a  different  pace  due  to  the 
organisation, the structure of the sectors and the degree of ambition and commitment of the 
industries.  Wind,  solar,  and  CCS  are  today  the  most  advanced.  The  grid  initiative  is  the 
less  advanced.  Progress  across  the  6  initiatives  is  variable  but  three  initiatives  at  least 
should be launched by end 2009 (from CCS, solar and wind). 

•  The Alliance is running very well trough interactions between Institutes and discussion on 
setting up the Alliance at working and decision level. The EERA plans to launch 3 Joint 
Programmes in 2009 and 3 more in 2010 and will organise 3-8 workshops to prepare and 
define  the  JPs.  These  programmes  will  pioneer  the  joint  programming  approach  through 
which  the  EERA  members  will  join  forces.  The  accent  should  be  put  now  on  the 
governance structure and the financing issue.  

•  The FP7 Energy Work Programme 2009 was the first one to take into account the priorities 
and  technologies  identified  in  the  SET-Plan.  In  particular  a  large  effort  was  dedicated  to 
second generation bio fuels.  

The current legal and financial instruments should permit to realise the objectives: 

•  If the SET-Plan has an ambition that is beyond the scope of FP7-Energy in the short term, 
the  FP7  Energy  Work  Programme  is  the  main  instrument  we  have  at  our  disposal  in  the 
short term to support its implementation of the SET-Plan.  

•  Possible additional financing sources at community level could be the revenues from 300 
million allowances of the Emission Trading Scheme and the recovery plan which could be 
used to finance initially the CCS, wind initiatives and other renewable initiatives.  

•  Regarding  the  possible  structure  of  the  EIIs,  many  options  are  possible  but  a  light  and 
flexible form is favoured over a JTI like one to enable faster progress. There is often the 
misperception that the Commission envisages a Joint Technology Initiative, under Art 171, 
as the sole implementation mechanism for each of these initiatives.  

EN 

37 

   EN 

•  For the Alliance, the implementation of Joint programmes could take a number of forms, 
from use of the ERA-net+ to instrument to a legislative proposal on the basis of article 168 
(Supplementary programmes) of the EC treaty. 

Future Work Programmes need to reinforce the focus on the key challenges of the SET-Plan, 
in particular anticipating the objectives of the embryonic European Industrial Initiatives and 
the  potential  joint  programmes  of  the  European  Energy  Research  Alliance.  The  2010  Work 
Programme will foresee a support action to the EERA infrastructure. A strong support to the 
SET plan has to be conciliated with the wider priorities of the Specific Programme, striking 
an appropriate balance and ensuring the effective implementation of the activities decided by 
Council  and  Parliament.  This  question  of  keeping  the  right  balance  is  a  major  issue  when 
implementing the yearly Work Programmes.  

It  is  more  and  more  obvious  that  Energy  research  depends on the  successful cooperation of 
different traditional fields of Research in order to produce breakthrough innovative results. In 
the domain of hydrogen and fuel cells, for example, this has led to the setting up of the Joint 
Technology  Initiative  on  fuel  cells  and  hydrogen,  co-funded  from  four  themes  (Energy, 
Transport,  NMP  and  Environment)  and  from  industry,  leading  to  an  initiative  having  the 
necessary  focus  and  critical  mass  to  create  the  conditions  for  the  growth  of  a  strong  and 
competitive European industry (see also chapter 3.4). 

Other approaches for cross cutting research have been taken in recent calls (2008 and 2009) in 
other  areas,  with  joint  calls  gathering  several  directorates  or  DGs  around  topics  such  as 
materials for energy applications, biorefineries or ICT for smart grids. The excellent answer 
to the joint call with materials has shown the interest of the research community for this type 
of calls. The current interest in the joint call on biorefineries further supports this approach of 
large, integrative projects. 

Biorefineries  -  facilities  that  combine  biomass  conversion  processes  and  equipment  to 
generate fuels, power and new materials from biomass - are at the core of several initiatives 
serving Competitiveness, Energy and Environment policies, notably the Climate Action and 
Renewable  Energy  package.  The  Biorefinery  Joint  Call38,  a  widely  integrated  approach 
involving four research themes under FP7 can be considered as a pilot experiment for future 
multidisciplinary approaches and represents a true achievement. 

The complexity  of the  topics  tackled  and the necessity to obtain the necessary critical mass 
and  visibility  required  the  different  scientific  communities  and  disciplines  concerned 
(environment,  materials,  biotechnology,  energy)  to  work  together  exploiting  all  possible 
synergies. The response from the research and industrial community was very good with sixty 
three proposals.  

The assessment of the true sustainability of the future solution proposed, building on the life 
cycle assessment work done by the Environment Directorate in DG RTD and the Institute for 
Environment and Sustainability of the JRC in Ispra, represents one of the special features of 
this call. In particular the problem related to the identification of the sustainability indicators 
for  second  generation  biofuels  and  all  biomass-related  products  will  represent  a  central 
research  element  in  all  funded  projects  and  will  put  the  EU  at  the  forefront  in  leading  the 
development  and  production  of  bio-based  products  (materials  and  energy) 
in  an 
environmentally, economic, and socially acceptable way. 

38 

OJ 2008/C 226/06 

EN 

38 

   EN 

                                                 
It is therefore expected that the projects which will emerge will be coherent and integrate all 
the  aspects  of  Biorefineries  including  the  demonstration  dimension,  leading  to  concrete 
advances in that domain. 

3.2.2.3.  Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, Biotechnology 

The primary aim of the Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, and Biotechnology Theme is to build 
a ‘European Knowledge Based Bio-Economy’ (KKBE). The most important instruments used 
are  ERA-NETs  and  European  Technology  Platforms  (ETPs):  Two  ERA-Nets  have  been 
established so far, and two others are under negotiation, while there are 8 officially recognised 
ETPs  and  one  emerging  initiative.  A  specific  project  encourages  ETPs  to  collaborate,  to 
explore  possible  synergies  and  to  further  improve  relations  with  national  research  funding 
organisations and ERA-NETs. 

The  development  of  a  bio-economy  ERA  is  further  enhanced  through  a  reinforced 
cooperation  between  Member  States  under  the  Knowledge  Based  Bio-economy  Network 
(KBBE-NET),  and  in  the  Standing  Committee  on  Agricultural  Research  (SCAR): SCAR  has 
set up 10 ERA-NET-like collaborative working groups (CWGs), some of which have led to 
new  ERA-NETs.  This  is  complemented  by  KBBE-NET  activities  on  biorefineries  and 
marine-biotechnology.  A  CWG  on  Synthetic  Biology  is  also  being  established  under  the 
KBBE-NET. An Expert group on Food and Health will provide advice for long-term strategic 
approaches  to  address  societal  challenges,  to  increase  cross-border  research  programmes,  to 
achieve  a  critical  mass  in  research  on  food  and  health  and  to  identify  gaps  in  research, 
technological tools and infrastructures.  

The  Food,  Agriculture  and  Fisheries,  and  Biotechnology  Theme  supports  a  wide  range  of 
Community  policies  and  strategies,  including  the  Energy  SET  plan  and  the  Integrated 
Maritime  Policy.  This  also  includes  support  to  policy  reform,  for  example  projects  in  areas 
such  as  trade  analysis  to  prepare  for  WTO  and  bilateral  trade  negotiations,  market  analysis 
and  rural  development  in  the  context  of  the  CAP  reform  as  well  as  projects  regarding 
sustainable food chains and novel approaches to governance in the context of the CFP reform. 
A  number  of  projects  are  also  addressing  the  future  of  European  farming,  the  challenges 
linked to climate change and the advantages of new technologies in robotics and information 
technologies. 

International cooperation in this theme has successfully reached out to a wide range of Third 
Countries  world-wide,  via  the  general  opening  of  all  topics  to  Third  Countries,  but  also 
through  dedicated  international  initiatives,  coordinated  calls  with  Third  Countries  (with 
Russia  and  with  India),  and  the  twinning  with  projects  funded  by  programmes  in  Third 
Countries  (with  Canada).  The  large  response  by  Third  Countries  in  proposals  selected  for 
funding (12%) as well as the high success rate of applicants from Third Countries (20%) are 
very promising. 

3.2.2.4.  Health 

The FP7 Health Theme has strongly contributed to EU policies in the field of Health & Public 
Health,  e.g.  through  the  chapter  on  Optimizing  the  delivery  of  health  care  to  European 
citizens, which is fully in line with the principles of the new EU Health Strategy Together for 

EN 

39 

   EN 

Health:  A  Strategic  Approach  for  the  EU  2008-201339.  Building  on  current  work,  this 
Strategy aims to provide an overarching strategic framework spanning core issues in health as 
well as health in all policies and global health issues.  

Further achievements and highlights are: 

•  The Council Regulation establishing the Innovative Medicines Initiative Undertaking (IMI) 
was  published  in  the  Official  Journal  in  February  2008.  Via  this  Initiative,  and  in 
partnership  with  the  European  Federation  of  Pharmaceutical  Industries  and  Associations 
(EFPIA), the Community will significantly improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the 
drug development process in Europe with the long-term aim that the pharmaceutical sector 
produces more effective and safer innovative medicines.  

•  The  European  and  Developing  Countries  Clinical  Trials  Partnership  (EDCTP),  the  first 
application of Art. 169, whereby the Community can participate in research programmes 
undertaken  by  several  Member  States,  concentrates  efforts  on  fighting  global  health 
threats: HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. In October 2008 the Commission adopted the 
Communication  on  the  Progress  Report  on  the  EDCTP  Programme  (Sept.  2003  -  May 
2008). The feasibility of renewing this Programme beyond 2010 is currently explored. 

•  Fighting  Alzheimer's  disease  and  other  dementias  is  one  of  the  areas  currently  being 
considered for a pilot Joint Programming initiative. The December 2008 Competitiveness 
Council  confirmed  the  necessity  of  launching  a  pilot  joint  programming  initiative  on 
combating neurodegenerative diseases. 

•  Cooperation  with  the  US  National  Institutes  of  Health  (NIH):  The  3rd  FP7  call  for 
proposals  in  the  Health  Theme  included  a  statement  welcoming  the  participation  of 
partners  based  in  the  USA,  explicitly  waiving  any  restrictive  clause,  in  response  to  the 
announced  NIH  openness  towards  European  researchers.  A  joint  letter  by  the  then-NIH 
Director Elias Zerhouni and Commissioner Potocnik advertised this agreement in Science 
on 14 Nov. 2008.  

•  International programmes in Genomics and Systems Biology: A striking feature of the field 
of genomics & systems biology is a trend towards global collaboration in the planning and 
execution  of  large-scale  programmes  that  lie  beyond  the  capability  of  any  single  player. 
Building  on  large  FP6  EU  projects  in  genomics  that  coordinated  their  research  agendas 
enabled  the  EU  to  become  a  leading  partner  in  large  world-wide  efforts  such  as  the 
International Mouse Mutant Collaborative Project co-funded by the EC, NIH and Genome 
Canada,  one  of  the  largest  life  sciences  research  endeavour  after  the  human  genome 
project,  the  International  Cancer  Genomics  Consortium,  launched  in  May  2008  or  the 
International  Human  Microbiome  Consortium  (IHMBC),  launched  Oct.  2008.  These 
efforts have definitely placed the Commission as a world partner on the map. 

3.2.2.5.  Partnership with Society 

The structure of the Socio-economic Sciences and Humanities (SSH) Programme corresponds 
to  the  most  important  EU  challenges:  Lisbon  strategy  and  knowledge  economy,  sustainable 

39 

European  Commission  (2007):  White  Paper  "Together  for  Health:  A  Strategic  Approach  for  the  EU 
2008-2013", COM(2007)630. Brussels. 
http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_overview/Documents/strategy_wp_en.pdf 

EN 

40 

   EN 

                                                 
 
development  and  cohesion,  major  societal  trends  (like  demography,  migration,  family, 
education,  working  conditions),  globalisation  and  Europe  in  the  World,  citizenship  and 
cultural  dimension.  The  knowledge  generated  for  each  of  these  challenges  from  the  SSH 
research  activity  is  directly  made  available  to  the  Directorates-General  responsible  for  the 
policies.  Vice  versa,  the  policy  needs  are  taken  into  account  in  the  research  agenda.  As  a 
result  of  the  development  of  an  activity  on  evidence  based  policy-making,  a  series  of 
interactions with policy DGs have been put in place, and important contributions to support 
policy are designed as the result, such as: 

•  Collaboration with BEPA on foresight (World in 2025) and support to the preparation of 

the "Lisbon+" (beyond 2010) strategy and budgetary reform (financial perspectives) 

•  Providing  data  bases  (e.g.  EU  KLEMS)  and  results  from  analysis  on  economic  issues 
(Lisbon  and  competitiveness)  and  social  issues  as  background  information  for  policy 
making; 

•  Support to the Renewed Social Agenda, through research actions related to demography, 

migration, life conditions, inequalities; 

•  Exploitation  of  research  results  to  address  the  financial  and  economic  crisis  as  well  as 
global  economic  governance  and  Sustainable  Development  issues:  post-carbon  society, 
urban cohesion; 

•  Launching  projects  on  the  changing  interactions  and  interdependencies  between  world 
regions  and  their  implications  for  Europe,  and  the  related  issue  of  addressing  emerging 
threats  and  risks  in  a  world  context  and  their  connection  to  human  rights,  freedoms  and 
well-being and contributing to the formulation of External Relations policies ranging from 
trade  to  development  cooperation,  human  rights  and  democratisation  policies,  and  CFSP 
(e.g. research on the impact on climate change on water and its implications for security).  

•  Launching research on how citizens and EU institutions and policies relate to each other 
and  the  challenges  for  EU  governance  of  fostering  'unity  and  diversity',  how  to  achieve 
active  participation  by  citizens  as  well  as  effective  and  democratic  governance,  and 
Europe’s  diversities  and  commonalities  in  terms  of  culture,  institutions,  law,  history, 
languages  and  values,  relevant  for  Commission  initiatives  such  as  Plan  D,  citizenship 
policies in the areas of justice, liberty and security as well as in relation to education and 
culture. 

Furthermore,  Societal  Platforms  have  been  set  up,  following  the  experience  of  technology 
platforms, to establish research agendas on difficult and complex issues relating to important 
societal  debates.  The  platforms  bring  together  experts  and  civil  society  stakeholders  in 
appropriately structured dialogue.  

The  Science  in  Society  (SiS)  Programme  contributes  directly  to  structuring  the  relationship 
between research and policies in general (for example through scientific advice) as well as to 
education and gender equality policies in particular. The main initiatives taken the first years 
of FP7 are: 

•  Launching research on the governance of fisheries, and notably on the most useful forms 
of  scientific  advice  for  marine  environmental  management  (SAFMAMS)  and  on 
participation  of  stakeholders  (GAP1).  Insights  from  existing  research  projects  and 
management processes were communicated to scientists and decision makers.  

EN 

41 

   EN 

•  Launching  research  on  wide-ranging  socio-cultural-economic  aspects  of  alternative  agri-
food  production  and  in  the  environmental  aspects  of  farming,  relevant  to  the  Common 
Agricultural Policy. 

•  FP7 projects are fostering more inclusive governance leading to actions and advocacy from 
citizens  and  civil  society  organisations  through  producing  a  better  understanding  of  the 
notion  of  "sustainable  energy  production  and  consumption",  crossing  perspectives  from 
research, industry, civil society and policy makers, and involving citizens.  

•  FP7 has advanced ideas about cooperative research processes that have been taken up by 
the  "Intelligent  Energy  –  Europe"  Operational  Programme  of  the  CIP  2007-2013,  the 
Strategic  Energy  Technology  Plan  (COM(2007)  723  final)  and 
the  Sustainable 
Consumption  and Production  and Sustainable Industrial Policy Action Plan (COM(2008) 
397 final).  

•  The Science education initiative (follow-up of Rocard report) has been developed in close 
co-operation  with  DG  EAC  and  is  intended  to  complement  national  efforts  to  improve 
science education. The close collaboration between the two DG's and the education and the 
research  policy  is  demonstrated  by  the  use  of  a  DG  EAC  led  "Open  Method  of 
Coordination"  group  for  the  purpose  of  better  defining  the  content  of  calls  under  the 
Science in Society programme.  

•  Several actions of the Commission's policy on gender equality (see Roadmap on equality 
between  women  and  men  -  COM  2006  final)  are  implemented  through  the  Science  in 
Society  programme.  They  have  led  to  the  publication  of  the  report  "Mapping  the  maze. 
Getting  more  women  to  the  top  in  research"  and  "Benchmarking  policy  measures  for 
gender equality in science".  

Furthermore, the Science in Society Programme has supported two actions on better inclusion 
and collaboration with industry as regards diversity of the Science and Engineering workforce 
and  the  interest  of  young  people  in  science  and  engineering  professions.  The  Science  in 
Society Programme supports industries in their efforts to better understand the conditions to 
increase the proportion of women in their science and engineering work force. This is done 
through a cost sharing scheme whereby the Science in Society programme provides funds to 
social  science  researchers  (human  resources  management,  behavioural  science,  organisation 
science) carrying out in-depth analyses in the participating companies. The industry partners 
in return contribute to their costs in meetings and best practice exchange and also make their 
employees available for the surveys. As a follow-up to the Rocard Report40 and an initiative 
by  the  European  Roundtable  of  Industrialists  the  Science  in  Society  programme  foresees 
funding  for  coordination  and  exchange  of  best  practice  as  regards  industry  involvement  in 
school science. 

Further fields of interest are partnerships between Civil Society Organisations (CSOs), which 
are  organised  around  issues  of  public  concern,  and  Research  Organisations  (ROs).  CSOs 
show a growing interest in getting involved in research policy, be it at the level of rendering 
research findings meaningful, contributing to research agenda setting or even participating in 
research projects. A new scheme was set up in FP7 to provide a better frame for partnerships 

40 

European  Commission  (2007):  Science  Education  Now:  A  Renewed  Pedagogy  for  the  Future  of 
Europe. Luxembourg. 

EN 

42 

   EN 

                                                 
between  CSOs  and  research  organisations  (ROs).  This  scheme  has  been  used  so  far  in 
sustainable development, social sciences and humanities. 

Co-operative Research Processes (CRPs) involve different types of actors and foster mutual 
learning.  Co-operative  Research  Processes,  involving  notably  CSOs  besides  researchers, 
policy makers, and mediators could be the embryo of a specific European way to "define and 
implement research priorities, engaging citizens and respecting common ethical norms". 

The  Special  Clause  for  Open  Access  represents  a  new  feature  designed  to  foster  the 
distribution  of  knowledge.  In  August  2008,  the  European  Commission  launched  an  open 
access  pilot  in  FP7.  Under  this  pilot,  grant  recipients  in  seven  areas  (energy,  environment, 
health, parts of information and communication technologies, research infrastructures, science 
in society, and social sciences and humanities) will be required to (1) deposit peer reviewed 
research  articles  or  final  manuscripts  resulting  from  their  FP7  projects  into  an  online 
repository, and to (2) make their best efforts to ensure open access to these articles. 

The pilot covers approximately 20% of the FP7 budget. A key objective is to ensure fast and 
reliable access to EU-funded research results, in order to drive innovation, advance scientific 
discovery and support a strong knowledge-based economy.  

3.2.2.6.  Fostering responsible Nanotechnologies 

As excellent research is becoming more and more complex and interdisciplinary and therefore 
more expensive, it requires a growing critical mass. Hence the European Union, with a total 
of € 3.5 billion over the duration of FP7, has mo re than doubled the budget for R&D for the 
NMP  theme  (Nanosciences,  Nanotechnologies,  Materials  &  New  Production  Technologies) 
compared to FP6. Scientific and technical development will benefit more and more from the 
convergence  of  new  technologies,  such  as  nanotechnology,  ICT,  etc.,  to  develop  novel 
approaches leading to advanced applications in many fields (health, environment, etc.). This 
has already lead – and will lead – to the implementation of coordinated calls between NMP 
and  other  priorities  as  well  as  joint  calls  with  other  countries.  Bringing  together  public  and 
private  organisations  across  Europe  to  perform  collaborative  R&D  is  key  for  the 
interdisciplinary  approach  often  needed  for  N&N  (nanotechnologies  and  nanosciences)  as 
well as for optimising resources. 

The  potential  economic  impacts  of  nanosciences  and  nanotechnologies  research  have  been 
highlighted by many analysts. At the same time, the emergence and innovative character of 
nanotechnology  increases  the  society’s  concern  regarding  nanoparticles  hazards,  e.g.  on 
public  health,  safety,  environmental  and  consumer  protection,  as  well  as  civil  liberties.  The 
responsible  management  of  nanosciences  and  nanotechnologies  has  become  an  essential 
requirement in the last decade. FP7 tackles this challenge through funding for the "Fostering 
Responsible Nanotechnologies" theme. In addition, the Commission adopted in 2008 a Code 
of  Conduct  for  Responsible  Nanosciences  and  Nanotechnologies  Research.  This  Code  of 
Conduct will apply in  the first instance to research supported by the European Commission 
and as a matter of fact has been already translated into the FP7 ethical review.  

3.2.2.7.  Security 

The evolving nature of Security issues in a rapidly changing world implies many challenges. 

Under FP7, EUR 1.4 billion have been dedicated for Security Research. Making Europe more 
secure for its citizens while increasing its industrial competitiveness, is the goal of European 

EN 

43 

   EN 

Security  Research.  Europe  has  never  been  so  peacefully  consolidated,  so  prosperous  and 
secure, yet at the same time so vulnerable against threats like terrorism, organised crime and 
natural  disasters.  By  cooperating  and  coordinating  efforts  on  a  continent-wide  scale,  by 
stimulating  the  cooperation  of  providers  and  users  for  civil  security  solutions,  the  EU  can 
better understand and respond to risks in a constantly changing world. 

Today, the evolving nature of security issues in a rapidly changing world implies many new 
challenges.  In  order  to  protect  our  fundamental  rights  and  freedom,  technological 
preparedness and response of society to potential or actual threats are essential. 

Moreover,  the  relationship  between  defence  technologies  on  the  one  hand,  and  security 
technologies  on  the  other,  is  particularly  noticeable  in  the  field  of  R&D,  with  technologies 
that  show  potential  developments  in  both  areas  (Dual  Use).  At  both  research  and  industrial 
development levels, synergies are possible and desirable. 

FP7  Security  Research  activities 
then  45  projects)  are 
multidisciplinary  and  mission  oriented.  It  ranges  from  technology  and  methodology 
development to systems integration. In addition, societal aspects are also addressed. 

(currently  already  more 

Overall psychological dimension and preparedness is also of highest importance at all stages, 
including prevention, crisis and after crisis management. This remains a major challenge for 
our societies, and it is therefore very promising to see that FP7 security R&D efforts in this 
field are increasing substantially. 

3.2.2.8.  Information and Communication Technologies R&D and Innovation 

Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) are at the core of the knowledge society. 
Community  activities  continue  to  strengthen  Europe's  scientific  and  technology  base.  They 
help drive and stimulate product, service and process innovation as well as creativity through 
ICT use. ICT R&D and innovation create benefits for Europe's citizens, businesses, industry 
and governments, and reduce the digital divide and social exclusion.  

The  Commission  has  recently  released  a  Communication  to  propose  a  Strategy  for  ICT 
Research,  Development  and  Innovation41  in  the  EU  with  a  view  to  establishing  Europe's 
industrial and technological leadership in ICT, making Europe more attractive to investments 
in  ICT  R&D&I  and  to  the  best  ICT  skills,  and  ensuring  that  Europe's  economy  and  society 
benefit fully from ICT developments.  

All together, around 550 ICT projects have been launched since the start of FP7 covering 7 
major technological or societal challenges in addition to Future and Emerging Technologies 
(FET) scheme (see below). In most cases, this resulted in a coherent project portfolio made up 
by a mix of large structuring integrated projects and smaller more focussed and agile projects 
exploring  new  research  avenues.  In  all  cases  the  portfolio  involves  a  participant  mix  of 
industry, including SMEs, research centres and higher education organisations. 

Activities funded under ICT in FP7 are focused on the contributions which ICT can make to 
key societal or technological challenges. Some illustrative examples are given below: 

41 

European  Commission  (2009):  Communication  "A  Strategy  for  ICT  R&D  and  Innovation  in  Europe: 
Raising the Game", COM(2009)116. Brussels. 

EN 

44 

   EN 

                                                 
•  ICT  for  Energy-Efficiency:  To  protect  the  environment  and  maintain  its  prosperity  and 
competitiveness on global markets, Europe has to focus on energy efficiency in the most 
energy-intensive  sectors.  This  requires  research  in  information  and  communication 
technologies  for  advanced  transport  management  and  control,  intelligent  power  grids  or 
more energy-efficient buildings. 39 projects have been launched since the start of FP7 to 
develop and test much needed solutions. 

•  ICT for Health: Another successful example for cross-disciplinary research is the Virtual 
Physiological  Human  Initiative  (VPH).  This  global  initiative  focuses  on  computer-based 
modelling and data processing of biomedical data for clinical applications in the areas of 
surgical  training,  planning  and  intervention;  prediction  or  early  diagnosis  of  disease; 
assessment of the efficacy and safety of specific drugs. Within ICT in FP7, a portfolio of 
15 projects, totalling a funding of €72 million contributes  to the VHP Initiative.  

•  ICT for Ageing Well: In response to the societal challenge of demographic change towards 
a  rapidly  ageing  population,  a  large  scale  initiative  on  ICT  for  Ageing  Well  has  been 
launched in FP7. New ICT solutions can allow elderly people to be socially included and 
to  live  longer  independently  at  home  rather  than  in  institutions  by  providing  integrated 
support  services  providing  for  example  safety,  daily  living  support,  mobility  and  care 
specifically  adapted  to  the  needs  of  elderly  people  and  their  carers.  This  can  strongly 
increase quality of life and lead to substantial reductions of the rising costs, in addition to 
creating new markets for relevant products and services. So far more than 30 projects with 
more than 50 million Euro funding have been launched, and this is complemented by the 
Ambient  Assisted  Living  Joint  Programme  with  involvement  of  23  European  Countries 
and  150  Million  Euro  funding  from  FP7.  In  addition  there  are  currently  10  large  pilot 
projects  on  ICT  for  Ageing  Well  launched  under  the  Competitiveness  and  Innovation 
Programme with involvement of 35 regions across Europe. 

•  Future  Internet:  The  internet  is  today  a  crucial  element  of  our  economy,  and  the  Future 
Internet  will  play  an  even  more  vital  role  in  every  conceivable  business  process.  The 
structural limitations of today's Internet in terms of scalability, mobility, security and trust 
are increasingly being recognised world-wide, and research is necessary and underway to 
invent the "Future Internet". It is therefore important that actions are taken today to make 
the future Internet fit for new and increased expectations among users, businesses, citizens 
and  governments.  In  order  to  foster  the  European  RTD  capabilities  in  this  domain,  more 
than 90 projects have been launched so far as part of FP7. More than 450 M€ are dedicated 
to this theme in the new ICT Work Programme. 

In  addition  to  funding  research  projects  centred  around  clearly  identified  technology  or 
societal challenges, the ICT Theme also supports frontier research: The Future and Emerging 
Technologies (FET) scheme acts as a pathfinder for new avenues of research, with the agility 
to  react  to  new  ideas  and  opportunities  as  they  arise  from  within  science  or  society.  FET 
research builds new bridges between science and technology and provides a basis for future 
research agendas. The FP7 FET portfolio is now made of about 75 new projects.  

ICT also play a central role in the Research Infrastructures part of the Capacities Programme: 
Support is provided to ICT-based research infrastructures (eInfrastructure). This builds on the 
success  of  the  GÉANT  research  network  and  the  research-Grids  infrastructure  supported  in 
FP6  and  in  the  first  phase  of  FP7  and  will  provide  higher  performance  computing,  data 
handling  and  networking  facilities  for  European  researchers  in  all  science  and  technology 
fields.  

EN 

45 

   EN 

As  stated  in  the  above  mentioned  Commission  Communication,  maintaining  Europe's 
competitiveness requires bridging the gap between research and innovation. In this respect, it 
is  vital  to  coordinate  activities  under  the  FP  with  actions  supported  by  the  Competitiveness 
and  Innovation  Programme  (CIP).  The  ICT  Policy  Support  Programme  (PSP)  supports 
activities  to  accelerate  innovation  and  implementation  of  ICT-based  services  and  systems 
through  the  wider  uptake  and  best  use  of  ICT  and  the  exploitation  of  digital  content  by 
citizens,  governments,  and  businesses  in  such  thematic  areas  as  ICT  for  health,  ageing  and 
inclusion, eGovernment as well as Digital Libraries. Following the first call for proposals of 
the ICT PSP (WP2007), 22 projects were contracted and a second call is now opened.  

An  example  for  an  activity  funded  under  the  Digital  Libraries  initiative  is  Europeana, 
Europe’s  multimedia  and  multilingual  online  library,  museum  and  archive.  The  service  was 
launched  on  20  November  2008  in  Brussels.  Europeana  opens  up  new  ways  of  exploring 
Europe’s  heritage  by  giving  free  and  fast  access  to  Europe's  greatest  collections  and 
masterpieces  in  a  single  virtual  environment  through  a  web  portal  available  in  21  EU 
languages.  Access  is  provided  to  more  than  three  million  books,  maps,  sound  recordings, 
photographs, archival documents, paintings and films from cultural institutions of the EU's 27 
Member States. Europeana is co-funded by the eContentplus programme. 

3.2.2.9.  Joint Research Centre (JRC) 

Since  the  beginning  of  FP7,  the  Joint  Research  Centre  (JRC)  has  oriented  its  Work 
Programme towards a more direct interaction with policy needs of the Commission Services. 
In this context, the JRC supports a broad range of policies through techno-economic analyses, 
the development and validation of test methods, standards and reference materials (regulatory 
support), harmonisation of methods and measurements, experimental and modelling work.  

Through  its  cooperation  with  a  wide  range  of  organisations  and  authorities  in  EU  Member 
States, the JRC is contributing to the European Research Area. For the remainder of FP7, the 
JRC  will  continue  such  contribution  through  its  participation  in  scientific  networks  and  in 
indirect actions and through the provision of access to its large facilities. 

A  recent  Ex-post  Evaluation  of  the  JRC’s  activities  in  FP6,  conducted  by  an  international 
panel  led  by  Sir  David  King42,  has  concluded  that  "The  JRC  has  undergone  a  major 
transformation over the last 10 years, consolidating its position as an indispensable source of 
knowledge and expertise in support of the political agenda of the EU".  

The  JRC  has  continued  on  this  track  in  FP7,  providing  important  support  to  EU  policy 
priorities.  For  example,  on  climate  change  the  JRC  has  provided  material  and  studies 
supporting  the  Commission's  position  in  the  upcoming  discussion  on  the  post-Kyoto 
initiatives.  The  JRC  has  provided  analyses  on  the  co-benefits  of  the  "two  degree"  climate 
policy. Its reference work on emissions of air pollutants was continued, and the impact of air 
pollution policies on climate change and health was evaluated.  

In the area of energy the JRC is supporting the SET-Plan establishment and development in 
particular by providing technology and capacity mapping. The scope of the capacity map is to 
provide an overview of the energy research capacities in the EU Member States through an 
inventory of companies involved in energy research, public and  private spending  on energy 

42 

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/jrc/downloads/2008_expost_fp6_evaluation_final_report_en.pdf 

EN 

46 

   EN 

                                                 
research,  institutions  involved  in  energy  research,  pull  instruments  used  for  market 
deployment of innovative technologies.  

In March 2008 the JRC document Biofuels in the European Context: Facts and Uncertainties 
represented  a  significant  input  to  the  development  of  the  Renewable  Energy  Directive.  The 
report  outlined  the  possible  magnitude  of  carbon  emissions  in  Developing  Countries, 
indirectly  caused  by  land  use  changes  possibly  induced  by  the  EU  Biofuels  Policy;  it  also 
pointed at uncertainties and open questions.  

The  JRC  has  been  working  closely  with  Commission  Services  and  Member  States  in  the 
Common  Implementation  Strategy  of  the  Water  Framework  Directive  (WFD).  Major 
achievements were obtained in intercalibration: Intercalibration is the process at the heart of 
the  Directive  setting  the  criteria  for  the  Good  Ecological  Status  to  be  achieved  by  Member 
States for  all  their surface waters by 2015. It compared ecological water quality  assessment 
systems among countries sharing similar types of surface water bodies.  

On  International  Cooperation,  the  JRC  is  developing  thematic  information  systems  and 
decision-making  tools  for  European  Commission  Services  and  African  stakeholders  such  as 
the EU Water Initiative Content Information System, monthly bulletins on food security in the 
Horn  of  Africa,  the  Assessment  of  African  Protected  Areas,  the  Soil  Atlas  of  Africa,  the 
Global Atlas of Desertification, etc. JRC has also installed in Central Africa an observatory on 
rainforests,  combining  satellite  information  and  field  observations  on  deforestation,  logging 
and biodiversity. Under the AU-EU Strategic Partnership, JRC is coordinating the action plan 
for  GMES  Africa,  (Priority  8  on  Science,  Information  Society  and  Space)  and  is  also 
contributing  to  the  Chapter  on  Peace  and  Security.  Capacities-building  activities  are  also 
conducted in Africa, by short-term training sessions, on-project actions or secondment of JRC 
staff to the African Union Commission. 

On security policy, the JRC has been providing scientific and technical support on monitoring 
illegal mining activities by means of satellite remote sensing (the Kimberley process). In the 
context  of  a  tri-lateral  Memorandum  of  Understanding  between  the  European  Commission, 
the  World  Bank  and  the  United  Nations  the  JRC  has  carried  out  comprehensive  civilian 
damage assessments of buildings and transport infrastructures in the core conflict and disaster 
areas  of  recently  damaged  territories  (e.g.  Lebanon,  and  conflict  in  Georgia.  Another 
successful example of early warning systems developed by the JRC is the Continental Early 
Warning  System  (CEWS)  in  cooperation  with  the  African  Union’s  Peace  and  Security 
Directorate to facilitate the anticipation and prevention of conflicts in Africa. 

Other  important  achievements  were  in  the  field  of  food  safety,  where  the  JRC  is  the  main 
provider of certified reference materials in support to EU regulations on the labelling of GM 
products in food and feed. The JRC hosts the European Coexistence Bureau jointly with DG 
AGRI, in charge of producing guidelines for best agricultural practices in the coexistence of 
GM crops with conventional crops. 

In relation to the EURATOM Work programme, the JRC activities on nuclear safety include 
the extension of the TRANSURANUS code for modelling nuclear fuels to those of Russian 
Pressurized Water Reactors; the launch of the "European Clearing House" to exchange, in the 
interest  of  European  national  safety  authorities,  best  practice  on  nuclear  power  plants 
operational events. Substantial scientific progress was achieved in the field of advanced spent 
fuel reprocessing and of the separation of highly radiotoxic elements, and in nuclear security 
(forensic  analysis  of  several  finds  of  illicit  trafficking).  The  JRC  continued  its  successful 

EN 

47 

   EN 

coordination of the EURATOM participation in GIF (Generation IV International Forum) and 
pursued its related scientific activities.  

Finally, the Joint Research Centre is currently developing its long-term vision and strategy in 
order to enable it to make the step-change in its policy support suggested by the King report. 
This  is  definitely  a  challenge  for  the  future,  as  the  JRC  needs  to  meet  constantly  growing 
expectations of its customers. This will require regular upgrading of key infrastructures.  

3.2.2.10. Space 

The  objectives  of  the  FP7  Space  theme  relate  directly  to  the  EU  sustainable  development 
strategy (SDS), with the major part of the programme being devoted to applications such as 
global  monitoring  for  environment  and  security  (GMES)  with  benefits  for  citizens.  GMES 
and  monitoring  of  climate  change  issues  are  integral  parts  of  the  space  work  programme 
which  aims  to  bring  data  and  information  providers  together  to  help  improve  the  quality, 
accuracy  and  timeliness  of  environmental  information  available  to  decision  makers.  By 
combining data from satellites and earth-based in-situ monitoring facilities, it will be easier to 
assess  environmental  impacts  and  also  provide  forecasting  services  as  well  as  mapping 
support for emergency management. 

In  the  framework  of  the  European  Development  Strategy,  space  applications  such  as  Earth 
observation  or  satellite  communications  have  been  recognized  as  a  central  tool  to  support 
Africa  in  its  sustainable  economic  and  social  development.  Knowledge  relating  to  the  main 
agricultural  crops  (for  countries  both  inside  and  outside  the  EU)  is  indispensable  to  adopt 
appropriate policies concerning sustainable development planning and food security. 

The  initial  period  of  FP7  has  seen  a  major  part  of  the  space  research  activities  devoted  to 
sustainable  development  by  supporting  GMES  related  service  development  as  well  as 
contributing  significantly  to  the  funding  of  the  GMES  space  infrastructure  necessary  to 
provide space based observational data. 

3.3.  A Boost for Frontier Research: The European Research Council 

The  creation  of  the  European  Research  Council  (ERC)  as  a  flagship  of  the  EU's  Seventh 
Framework Programme was a landmark event for science policy in Europe.  

The  European  Research  Council  (ERC)  is  the  first  trans-European  funding  body  set  up  to 
support  investigator-driven  frontier  research  in  Europe.  The  ERC  was  formally  launched  in 
February  200743  with  the  main  aim  to  stimulate  scientific  excellence  by  supporting  and 
encouraging  the  very  best  scientists,  scholars and  engineers to  perform  research  beyond  the 
established frontiers of knowledge and the boundaries of disciplines. The European Research 
Council  (ERC)  has  been  given  the  mandate  to  deliver  competitive  research  funding  at  the 
frontier  of  knowledge,  and  at  EU  level,  thus  adding  value  to  and  complementing  national 
research funding schemes. This presents new and exciting opportunities for frontier research 
in Europe. Researcher's nationality is not an eligibility criterion as the programme also aims 
to retain and attract to Europe the best researchers. 

43 

Commission  Decision  No  134/2007/EC  of  2  February  2007  establishing  the  European  Research 
Council (OJ L 57, p.14). Brussels. 

EN 

48 

   EN 

                                                 
The  ERC  consists  of  an  independent  Scientific  Council  (ScC)  composed  of  scientists, 
engineers and scholars of the highest repute, representing the European research community 
in  all  its  breadth  and  depth,  supported  by  a  Dedicated  Implementation  Structure  (DIS).  The 
Dedicated  Implementation  Structure has  been  legally  established  as  an  Executive  Agency 
(European  Research  Council  Executive  Agency –  ERCEA)  and  will  be  fully  operational  by 
2009. Until then, a dedicated service of the European Commission has the task of building up 
the operational capacities and management of the ERC funding activities. 

The ERC concept that a body like the independent Scientific Council (ScC) would establish a 
scientific  strategy  for  frontier  research  for  Europe  and  that  it  would  be  effectively 
implemented  was  an  innovative  and  high  risk  approach  within  FP7.  However,  the  first  two 
years have demonstrated that with the necessary vision, scientific leadership, commitment and 
effort the concept of a new trans-European entity for funding frontier research could become a 
reality.  The  ERC  has  successfully  set  up  structures  and  mechanisms  and  implemented 
investigator-driven  grant  schemes  in  all  fields  of  research  based  on  the  sole  criterion  of 
excellence. 

The Scientific Council has designed the ERC grant schemes to promote research excellence in 
all  fields  of  knowledge  and  scholarship  and  to  secure  the  corresponding  human  capital,  by 
both retaining in Europe and progressively recruiting from overseas some of the top research 
talent of both the current and the next generation. 

Two "core" schemes have been developed by the ERC within the FP7. Both operate without 
predefined  thematic  priorities;  individual  research  investigators  have  the  opportunity  to 
propose "bottom-up" research projects including high risk, interdisciplinary projects, that are 
evaluated on the sole criterion of excellence. 

•  ERC  Starting  Grants:  Supporting  the  transition  to  an  independent  career  for  excellent 
researchers,  whatever  their  nationality,  located  in  or  moving  to  the  Member  States  and 
associated  countries,  who  are  at  the  stage  of  starting  or  consolidating  their  own 
independent  research  team  or,  depending  on  the  field,  establishing  their  independent 
research programme. 

•  ERC  Advanced  Grants:  Supporting  excellent,  innovative  investigator-initiated  research 
projects across the Member States and associated countries, directed by leading advanced 
investigators  of  whatever  age,  who  have  already  established  themselves  as  being 
independent research leaders in their own right. 

These  schemes  have  been  well  received  by  the  research  community  and  already  over  500 
frontier-research  projects  resulting  from  the  first  calls  of  the  ERC  Starting  Grant  and  ERC 
Advanced Grant schemes have started in prestigious research institutions in Europe.  

3.3.1.  The ERC Peer Review Evaluation Process 

Setting up the ERC peer review system was a major priority for the Scientific Council during 
2007. It established Panels covering all scientific domains - Social Sciences and Humanities 
(SH), Life Sciences (LS) and Physical and Engineering Sciences (PE) covering a broad range 
of topics, to ensure that proper consideration would be given to high quality, interdisciplinary 
proposals. Twenty panels were set up for the first ERC Starting Grants call in 2007 covering 
all scientific domains. In 2008, no major changes were made to the ERC peer review system, 
the only adjustments made dealing with the handling of inter-disciplinary proposals. Based on 

EN 

49 

   EN 

the experience gained from the Starting Grants call, the number of panels was increased to 25 
for the first ERC call for Advanced Grants. 

The ERC put in place redress procedures, following the model established for FP7. In 2007, 
the "Ideas" configuration of the redress committee considered 245 redress requests relating to 
the  9167  proposals  submitted  following  the  stage  1  peer  review  evaluation;  this  number 
represents  approximately  3%  of  the  total  number  of  applications.  The  redress  committee 
concluded that 15 of these cases (6% of complaints; 0.16% of proposals received) required a 
re-evaluation, resulting in 1 proposal being passed to stage 2. Following the stage 2 evaluation 
procedures, 27 cases were received and have been processed, but none were retained. 

In 2008, the "Ideas" configuration of the redress committee considered 172 redress requests 
relating  to  the  2166  proposals  submitted  following  eligibility  check  (cases  on  eligibility 
status: 48) and peer review step 1 or step 2 evaluation (cases on evaluation: 124); this number 
represents  approximately  7.9%  of  the  total  number  of  applications.  The  redress  committee 
concluded that 14 of these cases (11% of complaints; 0.6% of proposals received) required an 
evaluation  (5  eligibility  cases)  or  a  re-evaluation  (9  evaluation  cases).  These  14  cases  are 
under process. 

3.3.2.  Performance of the Calls 

The first Starting Grant call was published in December 2006 with a deadline in April 2007. 
The budget announced for the call was approximately €290 million. A total of 9167 proposals 
were received of which 8794 were peer reviewed. At the end of the first stage, 559 successful 
applicants  (6%)  were  invited  to  submit  a  more  detailed  proposal  for  the  second  stage 
evaluation by the deadline of 17 September. The outcome of the evaluation process was a list 
ranking the proposals according to the conclusions of the panels. With applications averaging 
~€1 million, 299 (54%) applicants were funded. 

The first call for Advanced Grants was published  in November 2007 with deadlines for the 
following  February  (Physical  Sciences  and  Engineering),  March  (Social  Sciences  and 
Humanities) and April (Life Sciences). The budget announced for the call was approximately 
€490  million.  A  total  of  2.167  proposals  were  rece ived.  At  the  end  of  the  first  stage  275 
successful applicants (12,7%) were on the top list. 

The  ERC  funds  all  research  areas  and  scientific  disciplines.  However,  for  operational 
purposes, each call budget is pre-allocated as follows: 

•  Physical Sciences and Engineering: 39% 

•  Life Sciences including Medicine: 34% 

•  Social Sciences and Humanities: 14% 

The remaining 13% were pre-allocated to proposals of an interdisciplinary nature. 

Of  the  successful  applicants,  2,2%  are  not  currently  living  in  Europe.  Regarding  host 
institutions,  the  majority  of  them  (88%)  are  located  in  the  EU  with  the  remaining  12% 
situated  in  an  Associated  Country.  72%  of  the  principal  investigators  will  undertake  their 
projects  in  higher  education  establishments,  22%  in  public  research  centres,  4%  in  private 
(non  profit)  research  centres/foundations  and  the  reminder  in  private/commercial  research 
centres and international research centres. 

EN 

50 

   EN 

The  average  age  of  the  successful  applicants  is  just  above  51  years.  Gender  distribution 
differs  largely  between  the  various  domains,  with  a  considerably  higher  number  of  women 
selected in the area of Social Sciences and Humanities (18%), as opposed to the domains Life 
Sciences (16%) and Physical Sciences Engineering (6%).  

3.3.3.  Observing Sound Ethical Principles of FP Research 

Of the 299 projects selected for funding under the 2007 Starting Grants call, 95 were screened 
by an external ethics panel of which 40 were subjected to a full ethical review. One project 
involves  the  use  of  human  embryonic  stem  cells  and  has  been  submitted  for  opinion  of  the 
"Ideas" Programme Committee for regulatory approval (October 2008). 

For  the  2008  Advanced  Grants  call  128  proposals  were  flagged  for  ethical  screening.  The 
screening revealed 55 proposals needing full ethical review, 2 of which proposed to make use 
of  human  embryonic  stem  cells.  Copies  of  national  approvals  were  requested  in  62  cases 
where  a  full  ethical  review  was  not  required.  The  full  ethical  review  was  held  during 
November  2008.  In  two  cases,  a  new  ethical  review  was  requested.  This  was  performed  in 
January 2009, and the two proposals were approved on condition that the applicants present 
further documentation. 

There  are  many  challenges  still  ahead  for  the  ERC.  In  2009,  the  budget  for  the  Ideas 
Programme will surpass 1 Billion Euro and both the ERC Starting Grant and ERC Advanced 
Grant schemes will operate. The recruitment to the ERC Executive Agency (ERCEA) during 
early 2009 will ensure that the ERC has the capacities and competences to implement these 
two  schemes  simultaneously.  The  target  is  to  complete  all  the  required  administrative  and 
management measures to achieve the operational autonomy of the ERCEA by June 2009.  

The ERC has already had a significant impact in stimulating Europe's capabilities in frontier 
research and the enthusiastic response from the scientific community has justified the need for 
such an entity in Europe's portfolio of research programmes. 

3.4. 

Partnership with Industry 

3.4.1.  European Technology Platforms 

European  Technology  Platforms  (ETPs)44  demonstrate  the  Commission's  commitment  to 
strongly  engage  industry  in  developing  the  direction  of  research  and  have  gained  particular 
momentum  in  2008.  All  36  ETPs  have  produced  Strategic  Research  Agendas,  which 
encourage  a  better  coordination  of  R&D  efforts  and  articulate  the  views  of  industry, 
academia, civil society and other stakeholders on the needs and challenges in key technology 
areas  at  European  level.  These  Strategic  Research  Agendas  inspired  the  design  of  the  main 
priorities  of  FP7  and  continue  to  contribute  to  the  development  of  the  annual  work-
programmes of FP7. ETPs also influence priority-setting in national research programmes and 
stimulate  the  mobilisation  of  research  actors  at  national  level  via  the  formation  of  national 
platforms. In addition, ETPs have spearheaded the Commission's aim to implement different 
forms  of  large-scale  public-private  partnerships:  five  ETPs  have  spun  off  Joint  Technology 
Initiatives, with more in the pipeline, and others have contributed to industrial initiatives such 
as the SET Plan. A number of ETPs have moved beyond research agendas by contributing to 

44 

EN 

More 
http://cordis.europa.eu/technology-platforms/ 

information 

on 

the  European  Technology 

Platforms 

can 

be 

found 

on 

51 

   EN 

                                                 
the design of the Lead Markets Initiative, the production of standards, reviews of regulatory 
frameworks, and the strengthening of international research cooperation. Many are also active 
in research policy debates, including those on the future of ERA. 

3.4.2.  Joint Technology Initiatives 

JTIs are a pioneering approach to develop public-private partnerships set up at European level 
in order to leverage more R&D investments from Member States, Associated Countries and 
industry, to boost European competitiveness and to reduce fragmentation of EU R&D. Strong 
reasons  for  setting  up  JTIs  are  the  rapid  pace  of  technological  change,  the  rising  costs  of 
research,  the  increasing  complexity  and  interdependence  of  technologies,  and  the  potential 
economies of scale to be gained by cooperation across Europe. 

JTIs arise primarily from the work of European Technology Platforms. In a small number of 
cases, European Technology Platforms have achieved such an ambitious scale and scope that 
they will require the mobilisation of high public and private investments as well as substantial 
research resources to implement important elements of their Strategic Research Agendas. JTIs 
represent  an  effective  means  of  meeting  the  needs  of  this  small  number  of  European 
Technology Platforms. 

In  practical  terms,  a  JTI  is  a  legally  established  body  (a  Joint  Undertaking),  set  up  on  the 
basis of Article 171 of the EC Treaty. Strategic Research Agendas have been developed for 
the areas addressed by JTIs through intense collaboration between industry, including SMEs, 
the  research  community,  civil  society  organisations  and  other  stakeholders.  These  agendas 
provide clear and sound bases for the work programmes of the JTIs, which show a significant 
leverage  effect.  JTI  members  are  jointly  responsible  for  monitoring  progress,  guiding  the 
evolution of the initiatives and adapting the work programmes in response to changing needs. 
In  this  respect,  each  JTI  produces  an  annual  activity  report  and  reports  to  the  Council  and 
European  Parliament.  In  addition,  the  Commission  will  undertake  midterm  and  final 
evaluations  of  each  JTI.  JTIs  have  a  dedicated  budget  and  staff.  The  Joint  Undertaking 
provides a framework for the public and private players to work and take decisions together. 
It  organises  calls  for  proposals,  oversees  selection  procedures  and  puts  in  place  contractual 
arrangements for projects set up to implement the JTI research agenda. It allows funds from 
different  sources  to  be  jointly  managed  and  is  responsible  for  communication  and 
dissemination  activities.  Each  Joint  Undertaking  includes  one  or  more  decision-making 
bodies, an Executive Director and staff, as well as internal or external advisory bodies. 

In line with the FP7 Cooperation Specific Programme, the Commission presented proposals 
for Council Regulations for the following first four JTIs in mid-2007. 

•  Innovative Medicines (IMI) aims to provide new methodologies and tools for accelerating 
the development of safer and more effective medicines for patients, by focusing of research 
is on developing and validating new techniques and methods.  

•  Embedded Computing Systems (ARTEMIS) aims to help European industry consolidate and 
reinforce  its  world  leadership  in  building  computing  systems  into  various  kinds  of 
electronic equipment or machines. 

•  Clean Sky in the field of aeronautics envisages that innovative, greener technologies will 
be  demonstrated  and  validated;  new  technologies  are  being  developed,  test  flight  will  be 
conducted; the result of successful prototypes can be exploited by aeronautics companies.  

EN 

52 

   EN 

•  ENIAC  seeks  to  develop  key  technologies  for  nanoelectronics,  and  key  components  and 
devices across different application areas in order to strengthen European competitiveness 
and sustainability, and to facilitate the emergence of new markets and societal applications 
in sectors such as health, transport and energy. 

These Regulations were formally adopted on 20 December 2007 and published in the Official 
Journal on 04 February 200845.  

A fifth Regulation was adopted on 30 May 2008 and published in the OJ on 12 June 200846: 

•  Fuel Cells & Hydrogen (FCH) with the overall objective of speeding up the development 

of hydrogen supply and fuel cell technologies,  

The  JTIs  have  either  launched  and  already  closed  their  first  calls  for  proposals  in  2008  – 
based  on  the  principles  of  excellence  and  competition  -  or  entered  into  the  first  agreements 
with named beneficiaries.  

Work  within  the  Commission  is  continuing  on  a  number  of  practical  issues  such  as 
recruitment of the JTIs staff, identification of a long-term housing solution, implementation of 
an accounting system. JTIs are expected to reach financial autonomy in 2009. While it is too 
early  to  already  assess  their  impacts,  some  tentative  first  lessons  can  already  be  drawn 
considering  that  JTIs  are  already  proving  a  valuable  pilot  experience  in  setting  up  public-
private partnerships in research at European level.  

Irrespective  of  technological  advances  which  can  be  expected,  what  really  matters  for  the 
success of the initiatives is the proper functioning of the partnerships, with industry playing 
its  role  to  the  full  side  by  side  with  the  Commission  to  achieve  maximum  industrial  value 
from  every  Euro  invested.  JTIs  are  expected  to  play  an  important  role  in  shaping  Europe's 
research  landscape,  by  stimulating  research  investment,  building  critical  mass  by  uniting 
fragmented efforts and accelerating the process of converting the results of Europe's research 
into marketable goods and services for the benefit of European citizens. 

It should be noted that building on the success of ENIAC and ARTEMIS, preparatory work 
towards  a  large-scale  European  public-private  partnership  on  the  Future  Internet  has  also 
started. 

3.4.3.  Marie Curie Industry-Academia Pathways and Partnerships 

Marie Curie Industry-Academia Pathways and Partnerships (IAPP) are transfer of knowledge 
networks  designed  to  support  commercial  and  non-commercial  research  organisations  in 
working together on topics that are relevant to industry at that time. IAPPs aim at opening and 
fostering  dynamic  pathways  between  public  research  organisations  and  private  commercial 
enterprises,  in  particular  SMEs,  including  traditional  manufacturing  industries,  based  on 
longer term co-operation programmes with a high potential for increasing knowledge-sharing 
and  mutual  understanding  of  the  different  cultural  settings  and  skill  requirements  of  both 
sectors.  Partners  include  universities  and  companies  of  all  shapes  and  sizes.  Focussing  on 
joint research projects, IAPPs aim to boost skills exchange between the commercial and non-
commercial sectors. 

45 
46 

OJ L30, 04.02.2008, p.1-20, p.21-37, p.38-51, p.52-68. 
OJ L153, 12.06.2008, p.1-20 

EN 

53 

   EN 

                                                 
Noting  the  importance  of  proximity  in  knowledge  transfer,  the  action  allows  some  30%  of 
local  technology  transfer  while  the  remainder  must  be  embedded  in  an  industrially  relevant 
network across Europe, and optionally also including Third Countries industry. The long term 
aim  is  to  create  industry  -  academia  networks  in  specific  areas  of  technology  which  are 
defined through need, not politically driven priority setting. 

3.4.4.  Recovery Package 

There is a risk that the current economic downturn will cause a slow down of measures and 
investments  to  push  for  a  knowledge-based  society.  As  stepping  up  R&D  efforts  remains 
crucial  to  boost  Europe's  competitiveness  and  sustainable  economic  growth,  targeted  and 
timely countercyclical investments in R&D are central both for overcoming the crisis and for 
laying  the  longer-term  foundations  for  sustainable  economic  growth  and  employment.  This 
need for further reforms and investments oriented to research and innovation is an essential 
part  of  the  recovery  package  endorsed  by  the  EU  Summit  in  December  2008.  It  aims  at 
directing action to investments in the right skills for tomorrow's needs, in energy efficiency, in 
clean technologies in the construction and automobile sector, and in infrastructure and inter-
connection.  The  Commission  is  preparing  three  new  public-private  partnerships  to  boost 
research  efforts  in  the  industrial  sectors  most  seriously  affected  by  the  economic  downturn: 
automotive, construction and manufacturing. The research activities will be complemented in 
a  coherent  and  integrated  manner  by  demand  side  measures  -  such  as  public  procurement, 
standardisation activities - including linking it to existing lead market initiatives. 

3.5.  A new Approach to International Cooperation 

International scientific and technological cooperation has been part of the EU RTD policies, 
since the launch of FP1 in 1983. Initially, this cooperation targeted developing countries and 
included research themes related to sustainable development issues and key challenges, such 
as health, food safety, agriculture, natural resources, water, environment protection, etc. In the 
beginning  of  the  1990s,  similar  scientific  and  technological  cooperation  activities  were 
established  with  Central  and  Eastern  European  Countries  and  emerging  economies,  all  of 
these  brought  together  in  1994,  by  the  INCO  Programme,  a  dedicated  programme  for 
international  cooperation  under  FP4  (1994-1998)  and  FP5  (1998-2002).  The  ERA 
Communication  adopted  in  January  2000  identified  the  need  to  enhance  the  international 
dimension  of  research  within  and  beyond  Europe,  and  more  systematic  efforts  to  open  the 
ERA  to  the  world  started  to  be  implemented  in  FP6  giving  Third  Country  researchers  the 
possibility to participate into two ways, namely through a dedicated FP6 INCO programme47 
and through the innovative general opening of thematic areas to all Third Countries. 

FP7  triggered  important  changes  in  international  research  cooperation:  A  more  proactive 
approach in the relationship with our foreign partners, a more systematic coordination of the 
international  components  of  the  Framework  Programme,  and  renewed  efforts  to  ensure 

47 

Developing countries – health and public health; rational use of natural resources; food security 

Under FP6, the INCO Programme was organised around groups of countries, addressing the following 
thematic areas and with the following allocated budget: 
(a) 
– € 152,7 million; 
(b) 
cultural heritage; health – € 64,9 million; 
(c) 
(d) 
industrial production; communication and health protection – € 85,2 million. 

Western Balkan countries – environment; health – € 19,8 million; 
The  Russian  Federation  and  NIS  –  environmental  protection  -  adjusting  the  system  for 

Mediterranean  partner  countries  –  environment,  including  water  renewable  energies  and 

EN 

54 

   EN 

                                                 
 
 
 
 
coherence  and  complementarity  with  the  external  policies  and  programmes  of  the  EU.  This 
new approach has changed drastically the content of the international cooperation activities of 
the Capacities Programme, moving away from thematically and geographically focussed calls 
for research projects (now integrated  within  FP7  thematic  programmes)  to  coordination and 
competence  building  activities  involving  more  policy  oriented  participants  e.g.  INCO-NET, 
ACCESS4EU and BILAT projects.  

Association of Third Countries to the Framework Programme has reached an unprecedented 
scope,  with  12  -  mainly  European  -  countries48  presently  associated,  including  all  of  the 
Western  Balkan  states.  This  makes  FP7  a  true  pan-European  programme  and  strongly 
underpins the objective of building a wider ERA. 

Science  &  Technology  (S&T)  Cooperation  Agreements  establish  a  legal  framework  to 
promote  S&T  cooperation  activities  between  the  Communities  and  Third  Countries.  Since 
1998,  the  European  Community  has  concluded  S&T  agreements  with  17  countries49  (soon 
20), including almost all the industrialised and emerging countries and a significant number of 
developing  ones;  another  15  agreements  (soon  18)  exist  under  EURATOM.  The 
implementation of these agreements has become considerably more concrete and substantial, 
largely thanks to the possibility to translate common priorities and commitments, as identified 
by the Joint Committees, into targeted calls notably through a series of coordinated calls with 
Russia, China, India and Brazil. 

The  S&T  Agreements  are  being  used  during  FP7  to  strengthen  international  collaboration 
with  Third  Countries  on  commonly  set  priorities  and  through  specific  mechanisms  such  as 
targeted and co-funded activities such as Specific International Coordination Actions (SICAs) 
and Coordinated Calls. A variety of schemes including SICAs, but also "twinning" of projects 
at  programme  level,  (SICAs),  and  "targeted  opening"  calls,  aiming  at  supporting  joint 
research  activities  on  areas  of  common  interest  and  benefit,  have  also  been  used  in  the 
Cooperation  Programme  to  reinforce  the  participation  of  Third  Countries  in  the  various 
thematic areas thus increasing the international dimension of their actions.  

The  Research  International  Cooperation  (RIC)  coordination  group  –  involving  all  the 
Commission services supporting research - proved to be an indispensible tool to help ensure 
the consistency of international cooperation activities throughout the Framework Programme. 
Through the RIC, and through systematic work of monitoring and analysis of the international 
components of the work programmes, the DG could strengthen its international outreach and 
better comply with its international commitments. 

The  new  design  of  FP7  offers  strengthened  opportunities  to  reinforce  international 
cooperation. This opportunity has been exploited by the themes, (e.g. by the energy, the ICT 
and  the  Socio-economic  Sciences  and  Humanities  themes,  to  name  only  a  few),  and  many 
successful initiatives have been launched. For example, regional and bilateral agreements are 
implemented  by  SSH  according  to  societal  challenges  relevant  both  for  the  EU  and  the 
specific  regions.  More  than  ever,  international  cooperation  is  the  key  to  address  major 
technological (e.g. Next Gen Internet, higher energy efficiency, networks security) and major 
transport,  global  warming). 
societal  challenges  (e.g.  sustainable  healthcare,  ageing, 
International  research  cooperation  on  ICT  offers  a  potential  to  increase  European 

48 

49 

Albania,  Croatia,  Former  Yugoslav  Republic  of  Macedonia,  Montenegro,  Serbia,  Bosnia  and 
Herzegovina, Turkey, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Israel, and Switzerland. 
Argentina,  Australia,  Brazil,  Canada,  Chile,  China,  Egypt,  India,  Mexico,  Morocco,  New  Zealand, 
Republic of Korea, The Russian Federation, South Africa, Tunisia, Ukraine, USA. 

EN 

55 

   EN 

                                                 
competitiveness  both  internally  and  on  global  markets.  EU  co-operation  is  of  particular 
importance with both high-income countries and emerging economies in areas where there is 
clear  reciprocity  in  knowledge  sharing  and  where  financial  risks  associated  with  the 
introduction of research results to the market are high. 

Even  areas,  where  competitiveness  is  a  key-issue  and  the  competitiveness  of  the  European 
transport  industry  has  to  be  improved  and  not  to  be  endangered,  benefitted  from  the  new 
opportunities, the transport theme, with collaboration with China (SICA), a coordinated call 
with Russia and bi-lateral agreements with India and South Africa being an example. 

The  Marie  Curie  International  Research  Staff  Exchange  Scheme  (IRSES)  is  a  new  action 
aiming  at  solely  at  improving  international  cooperation  with  key  partnership  countries.  It 
offers opportunities for a dynamic series of short term exchanges of not only scientific staff, 
but also staff that support research at strategic and operational levels. The IRSES Action has 
been successfully launched. Already in the first call in 2008, some 179 institutions from 75% 
of all eligible Third Countries applied. 

It  should  not  be  overlooked  that,  in  strategic  terms,  the  Marie  Curie  Actions  are  the  most 
international  initiatives  in  FP7.  Almost  all  countries  globally  can  participate  in  almost  any 
research  or  training  activity.  In  some  cases,  the  FP7  pays  for  the  costs  of  short  term 
fellowships for Third Country researchers, their strategic and management staff and technical 
teams  to  create  lasting  networks  of  cooperation.  There  is  an  ongoing  commitment  which  is 
confirmed  annually  to  focus  not  less  than  25%  of  all  funds  in  International  Cooperation 
projects. 

Future  International  Cooperation  activities  will  reinforce  the  external  dimension  of  the 
European  Research  Area  (ERA)  and  in  particular  contribute  to  the  implementation  of  the 
Strategic  European  Framework  for  International  S&T  Cooperation50.  This  Communication 
sets out a series of orientations for action to make the ERA more open to the world, namely 
(1) integrating Europe's neighbours into the ERA; (2) fostering co-operation with key Third 
Countries through geographic and thematic targeting; (3) improving the framework conditions 
for  international  S&T  cooperation  (including  on  global  research  infrastructures;  mobility  of 
researchers  and  global  networking;  opening  up  of  research  programmes  and  on  intellectual 
property issues). These actions will be developed through the implementation of a sustainable 
partnership  between  Member  States  and  the  EC  as  provided  for  by  the  conclusions  of  the 
Council of 2 December 200851. 

A Strategic Forum for International Cooperation will be established in 2009 at the request of 
the Council, and this will develop the partnership between Member States and the EC in the 
context  of  the  further  realisation  of  the  ERA.  One  of  the  aims  of  the  Strategic  Forum  is  to 
develop common priorities for international cooperation which should lead to joint activities 
and positions vis-à-vis Third Countries and within international fora. 

Association Agreements led to a more intensive cooperation with the closest partners of the 
EU.  In  addition  to  the  12  countries  currently  to  the  FP,  Moldova  and  Russia  have  formally 
requested  to  be  associated.  Furthermore,  the  association  to  the  FP  will  be  opened  for  ENP 
Countries  including  the  Mediterranean  Dialogue  Countries.  This  process  of  widening  the 
geographical scope of the ERA will significantly contribute to the EU’s policy goals towards 

50 

51 

European  Commission  (2008):  Communication  "A  strategic  European  Framework  for  International 
Science and Technology Cooperation", COM(2008)588. Brussels. 
Conclusions of the 2891st Competitiveness Council, 2nd December 2008 

EN 

56 

   EN 

                                                 
these  countries,  in  particular  building  sustainable  economic  prosperity.  In  this  context  FP7 
INCO-Net has an important role to play through provision of support to regional platforms for 
S&T policy dialogue and priority setting at bi-regional level bringing together Member States 
and European Neighbourhood Partnership (ENP) countries in this process.  

The  funding  mechanisms  implemented  under  FP7  (SICAs,  etc.)  will  continue  to  be  the 
mainstay  of  international  S&T  Cooperation  actions,  but  will  progressively  be  influenced  by 
the  new  Strategic  European  Framework.  The  Framework  provides  for  greater  coherence 
between policies with respect to international co-operation and will impact on the articulation 
of policies (already beginning to be demonstrated with the implementation of the Joint Africa-
EU Strategic Partnership and the opportunities for association to the Framework Programme 
of  European  Neighbourhood  Partnership  (ENP)  countries).  Russia  is  already  an  important 
research partner for the EU and this EU-Russia S&T cooperation could be further enhanced. 
Nevertheless  the  development  of  this  research  ties  needs  to  be  seen  in  the  wider  context  of 
EU-Russia relations. The Framework Programme could develop in the Capacities Programme 
specific  competence  building  actions  targeting  the  ENP  countries  that  are  complementary 
with the ENPI (European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument) activities. 

In 2005, the EU undertook to ensure that all community policies assist Developing Countries 
achieve the Millennium Development Goals52. In December 2007, a new EU Africa Strategic 
Partnership was agreed, which included science as a priority and provides a long-term vision 
for  the  benefit  of  the  people  of  Africa  and  Europe.  It  has  as  an  objective  to  bridge  the 
scientific  divide,  to  strengthen  African  S&T  capacities  and  enhance  the  role  of  S&T  as  key 
enablers for poverty reduction, growth and socio-economic development.  

This Partnership is the foundation of the new approach to S&T co-operation with Africa and 
offers  an  opportunity  to  build  up  a  new  synergy  between  the  EU  Science,  Technology, 
Innovation and Development policies and instruments.  

The  Framework  Programme  should  contribute  to  the  implementation  of  the  Partnership  in 
close cooperation with the Development Programmes of the EC, which should help increase 
the  research  capacities  of  the  African  countries  and  the  joint  initiatives  of  the  EU  Member 
States. Nineteen "lighthouse projects" were recently approved out of which six are considered 
as "early deliverables" and will be implemented at short term. Their main aim is to enhance 
African R&D activities in some selected key sectors such as water and food security at river 
basin scale and to promote scientific excellence through grants offered to African researchers. 

3.6.  Optimising Finance Opportunities: The Risk Sharing Financial Facility 

The Risk Sharing Financial Facility (RSFF) represents the result of a joint vision and common 
effort  of  the  European  Commission  and  the  European  Investment  Bank  to  develop  new 
financial instruments for the knowledge economy. The RSFF is a risk-bearing instrument by 
which  the  EIB  covers,  through  capital  allocations  and  provisions,  the  risks  it  bears  when 
lending directly or when guaranteeing loans made by intermediaries. Up to € 1 billion will be 

52 

European  Commission  2005):  Communication  on  "Policy  Coherence  for  Development  -  Accelerating 
progress towards attaining the Millennium Development Goals", COM(2005)134. Brussels. 
General  Affairs  and  External  Relations  Council  (GAERC)  Conclusions  on  the  Millennium 
Development Goals (Doc. 9266/05). 
Joint  Statement  by  the  Council  and  the  representatives  of  the  governments  of  the  Member  States 
meeting  within  the  Council,  the  European  Parliament  and  the  European  Commission  on  European 
Union Development Policy: "The European Consensus" (OJ 2006/C 46/01). 

EN 

57 

   EN 

                                                 
 
 
made  available  from  each  institution  for  RSFF  over  2007-2013,  allowing  the  fund  to  make 
available financing in the order of € 10 billion for investments in research, development and 
innovation. RSFF is managed by the European Investment Bank (EIB). 

The  RSFF  targets  European  research-intensive  entities  including  SMEs  and  research 
infrastructures, irrespective of size and ownership, which contribute to the objectives of FP7. 
The financing may be provided either to entities active in the field of research and innovation 
or to individual research-related projects, often at a demonstration stage. 

Smaller  companies  and  projects  involved  in  research,  development  and  innovation  may 
benefit via the intermediation of financial institutions with which the EIB has established, or 
will enter into, risk-sharing agreements. 

The  RSFF  Co-operation  Agreement  between  the  European  Community  and  the  European 
Investment Bank was signed on 5 June 2007 and entered into force on signing. 

Over  30  seminars,  workshops  and  meetings,  and  17  conferences  were  organised  with  the 
stakeholders of FP7 and with potential RSFF borrowers in 2007. 

A  network  of  RSFF  liaison  officers  has  been  established  that  is  regularly  updated  on  RSFF 
progress. RSFF team continues to present RSFF to colleagues from DG RTD and other DGs 
of the research family, either in the form of dedicated presentations or within the framework 
of FP7 training sessions.  

Since its launch in June 2007, the EIB Board has approved 30 RSFF operations. The volume 
of  signed  loans  has  reached  the  EUR  2  billion  mark  at  the  beginning  of  2009.  The  main 
beneficiaries  of  RSFF  loans  have,  so  far,  been  mid-cap  and  larger  companies  as  well  as 
dedicated  companies  implementing  one  particular  demonstration  project.  The  geographical 
coverage of the RSFF includes already loan operations in 14 European countries and will be 
further extended during the year 2009.  

The  RSFF  has  also  provided  loan  finance  to  companies  in  different  sectors,  particularly  in 
Energy,  ICT,  Life  Sciences  and  Engineering/industry  including  automotive  companies  with 
important  environmental  benefits  in  the  context  of  their  RDI  investments.  Over  10%  of  the 
current RSFF portfolio of the EIB is devoted to risk-sharing loan arrangements with financial 
intermediaries  in  order  to  make  RSFF  finance  available  to  SMEs  in  need  of  smaller  loan 
amounts. 

The  RSFF  can  also  support  the  implementation  of  Research  Infrastructure  projects,  notably 
those  of  European  interest  which  have  been  included  in  the  ESFRI  list.  For  one  important 
ESFRI project, the EIB has already received the EC's approval to provide an RSFF loan of up 
to EUR 100 million if requested by the project promoters. 

EN 

58 

   EN 

4. 

BETTER MANAGEMENT THROUGH SIMPLIFICATION 

After the first years of the FP7, the proposers and the Commission services find themselves in 
a  different  and  better  environment  of  everyday  administrative  reality  in  relation  to  the 
previous  FPs.  They  can  avail  themselves  of  many  new  concrete  tools  of  various  kinds  that 
simplify the procedure of the disbursement of the Community funding and they can see new 
structures in place that will take up major parts of the actual FP implementation.  

And yet, at the same time as these improvements set in, it becomes more apparent that things 
can not get much better as long as there is no change in the legislative environment.  

4.1.  Concrete Achievements  

Achievements in terms of rationalising and simplifying programme management are making 
research money go further than it has done before.  

The reinforced research evaluation facility established in 2006 is capable of hosting more than 
500  evaluators  on  site  with  further  remote  and  video-conferencing  facilities.  It  has  already 
evaluated  tens  of  thousands  of  proposals  received  through  a  new  Electronic  Proposal 
Submission Service (EPSS) and managed hundreds of calls.  

The  time  and  effort  needed  to  deal  with  financial  and  administrative  requirements  has  been 
reduced  through  simplification  of  FP7  and  through  externalisation  and  specialisation  in 
management  tasks.  The  funding  models  have  been  rationalised  and  the  EU  co-funding  rate 
has been increased from 50 % of total project cost to 75% for public research organisations 
and  SMEs.  The  introduction  of  a  guarantee  fund  has  made  ex-ante  controls  of  financial 
capacity  of  participants  obsolete,  helping  SMEs  and  smaller  organisations  to  participate. 
Forms  and  procedures  have  been  rationalized,  guidance  has  been  clarified,  reporting 
requirements  have  been  reduced  by  25%  and  practical  measures  such  as  the  Unique 
Registration Facility are reducing time to contract.  

The  simplification  achieved  in  the  7th  Framework  Programme  will  in  itself  lead  to  fewer 
errors in financial reporting over the next few years. In fact as it is already the case for FP6, a 
12  fold  increase  in  ex-post  audits  of  existing  contracts  in  the  last  2  years  has  increased  the 
assurance  that  errors  in  legality  and  regularity  are  identified  and  corrected.  Where  there  are 
systematic  errors  the  correction  will  be  extrapolated  to  other  contracts.  Depending  on  the 
effectiveness  of  the  extrapolation  stage,  it  remains  feasible  to  bring  down  the  level  of  error 
over the life of the programme below the current level of approximately 2.5%. 

Accomplishments  that  have  been  brought  about  so  far  are  described  in  more  detail  below. 
Many  of  them  have  been  indicated  and  sketched  already  back  in  2005  in  the  Commission 
Staff  Working  Document  "Simplification  in  the  7th  Framework  Programme"  (SEC(2005) 
431), which was presented together with the  Commission's  proposals for FP7. In  particular, 
important progress was made with regard to the following objectives: 

•  Consistent, high quality communication through the ameliorations on project reporting and 

on streamlining and harmonisation of documentation. 

•  Rationalisation  of  the  requests  for  information  addressed  to  participants  through  the 
possibility of the unique registration of legal entities, the improvements on grant agreement 
negotiation  and  on  project  reporting.  Moreover,  the  Participant  Portal  that  is  currently 

EN 

59 

   EN 

under  development  will  further  reinforce  the  systematic  use  of  electronic  tools  for  all 
interactions  with  participants  related  to  proposal  and  grant  management,  providing  a 
unique user interface. 

•  Guaranteeing  the  protection  of  the  Community's  financial  interest  without  imposing  an 
undue  burden  on  participants  by  reducing  a-priori  controls  to  the  bare  minimum  through 
the certification of costs and fewer ex-ante capacity checks. 

•  Full operational autonomy entrusted to consortia through the novelties on project reporting. 

•  Initial  steps  towards  flat-rate  financing  within  a  simplified  framework  of  forms  taken  by 
Community  financial  contributions  through  the  introduction  of  the  use  of  a  lump  sum 
approach  for  subsistence  and  accommodation  costs.  However,  some  DGs  have  opted  for 
not applying such schemes to grant beneficiaries. 

Other goals, like removing the need for complex cost reporting models, clarifying definition 
of  eligible  costs  and  simplifying  support  rates  per  type  of  activity  were  reached  with  the 
adoption  of  the  FP7  Rules  for  Participation  and  dissemination,  whereas  further  progress  on 
streamlining  the  selection  process  was  held  back  due  to  lack  of  legislative  decision,  despite 
the Commission's proposals.  

4.1.1.  A Series of Important Steps Forward 

Accomplishments (already attained or well after their starting phase) include the following: 

(1) 

Fewer audit certificates - Certification of costs: 

The number of audit certificates (certificates on financial statements) is substantially reduced 
in  FP7  compared  to  FP6:  only  beneficiaries  receiving  more  than  €  375  000  will  have  to 
provide a certificate; (in FP6, every beneficiary had to submit at least one audit certificate at 
the  end  of  the  project  no  matter  what  the  amount  involved).  A  simulation  based  on  the 
population  of  FP6  contracts  shows  that  only  18%  of  the  participations  receive  EC 
contributions above € 375 000. Assuming a simila r distribution of funding in FP7, this would 
mean that for 82% of FP7 participations no certificates would be necessary – a reduction of 
the number of certificates by a factor of ten compared to FP6. 

(2) 

Fewer ex-ante financial capacity checks and protective measures: 

The  introduction  of  the  guarantee  fund  in  FP7  allowed  the  abolition  of  ex-ante  financial 
viability  checks  for  the  majority  of  participants.  These  checks  are  now  only  necessary  for 
coordinators and participants requesting more than € 500 000 EC contribution. In FP6, only 
11% of the participations received more than € 500 000 EC contribution. Assuming a similar 
distribution of funding in FP7, this would mean that nine out of ten participants in FP7 would 
be exempt from any ex-ante financial capacity check. 

In  addition,  bank  guarantees,  blocked  accounts,  reduced  pre-financing  or  other  measures  of 
financial protection are no longer requested by the Commission.  

Both  the  increase  of  the  threshold  and  the  abandonment  of  protective  measures  simplify 
participation in particular for SMEs and start-ups. 

EN 

60 

   EN 

(3) 

Unique registration of participating legal entities: 

Repeated  requests  for  the  same  documents  on  the  existence  and  legal  status  of  participants 
were a major cause of complaints in previous framework programmes. Since the start of FP7, 
the  principle  of  unique  registration  is  introduced.  A  central  validation  team  operates  since 
mid-2007. Legal documents have to be provided only once and validation by the central team 
holds  for  all  future  participations  in  FP7.  The  second  phase  of  this  project  was  the 
introduction  of  the  Unique  Registration  Facility  (URF),  a  Web-based  system  where  the 
participants themselves can access and change their legal data online. This system, common 
to  all  research  DGs,  is  in  operation  since  the  beginning  of  May  2008.  More  than  11000 
entities  are  already  registered.  The  unique  identifier  (Participant  Identification  Code  –  PIC) 
given to each legal entity will provide for several improvements in the future FP7 grant and 
programme management: 

•  It  avoids  repeated  introduction  of  the  same  data  in  different  systems  and  provides  easy 
traceability of participations through the complete project lifetime and in all IT systems. It 
improves thus the quality and coherence of statistics and reporting. 

•  It allows an easy propagation of changes to the legal entity data to all systems and parties 

concerned in all grants in which an organisation participates. 

•  It provides for a more coherent implementation and extrapolation of audit results. 

•  It gives each organisation the possibility of easy monitoring of their participations in FP7 
(via  the  Legal  Entity  Appointed  Representative  –  LEAR,  who  will  have  online  access  to 
the list of participation of his organisation). 

(4)  Quicker grant agreement negotiation: 

A  new  Web-based  electronic  system  for  negotiation,  used  by  all  research  DGs,  was 
introduced by the end of 2007. The system allows online interaction between participants and 
Commission project officers.  Since May 2008 it is linked to the unique registration facility, 
providing for seamless data exchange on legal entities. 

(5) 

Easier project reporting: 

Several  elements  of  simplification  are  being  introduced  in  the  processes  and  rules  for 
intermediate and final scientific and financial reporting in FP7 projects: 

•  The reporting guidelines and the structure of reports were considerably streamlined.  

•  We strive for an extension of average reporting and payment periods from 12 months (in 
FP6)  to  18  months.  This  could  reduce  the  overall  number  of  reports  and  payment 
transactions by 17% (estimation based on simulations of the FP6 portfolio), thus reducing 
the workload both for the participants and the Commission services. 

•  The amount of data collected in reports is considerably reduced. Detailed questionnaires on 
wider  societal  implications  will  no  longer  be  required  with  each  intermediate  report  but 
only once (in the final report). 

•  A Web-based electronic system for collecting financial reports ("forms C") is online since 
December  2008.  The  system  is  linked  to  the  unique  registration  facility  and  to  the  grant 
management system and presents pre-filled forms with automatic checks and calculations 

EN 

61 

   EN 

for  coordinators,  simplifying  thus  financial  reporting  and  reducing  error  rates.  A  similar 
system is in preparation for the scientific reporting that will simplify interactions between 
participants and the Commission and will provide better possibilities for the dissemination 
of project results. 

(6) 

Faster conclusion of amendments: 

Amendments  to  ongoing  contracts/grant  agreements  represent  a  considerable  administrative 
workload  both  for  participants  and  the  Commission.  The  FP7  amendment  guidelines  were 
therefore  prepared  with  the  aim  of  identifying  all  possibilities  for  simplifying  rules  and 
procedures. The main result is that in FP7 the coordinator can not only request amendments 
on behalf of the other beneficiaries (as in FP6) but can also accept them on behalf of them. 
Also, some changes (such as changes in the address or legal name of the beneficiary) in on-
going grants will not require a formal amendment in each of the grant agreements where the 
beneficiary  participates  but  just  the  sending  of  one  information  letter  to  the  legal  entity. 
Important  simplifications  in  the  amendment  processes  will  be  enabled  by  the  unique 
registration facility. Changes to the status of a legal entity are now automatically propagated 
to  all  grants  concerned  in  all  Directorates  General  of  the  Commission  involved  in  the 
implementation  of  FP7  ("the  research  DGs")  and  to  the  respective  participant,  coordinators 
and project officers. 

(7) 

Streamlining and harmonisation of documentation: 

Documentation and guidance notes on the various aspects of FP7 implementation are clearer 
and  simpler  and  adapted  jointly  by  the  research  DGs,  preceded  by  consultation  of  external 
stakeholders, as e.g. via comments received directly from beneficiaries in the inquiry service 
(helpdesk),  via  the  network  of  legal  and  financial  national  contact  points  and  the  sounding 
board of smaller research actors. 

(8) 

Use of a lump sum approach for accommodation and subsistence costs: 

As one step towards extended use of lump sums and flat rates in FP7 funding, a Commission 
decision  is  under  preparation,  providing  the  option  for  participants  to  use  a  lump  sum  for 
charging  travel  and  subsistence  costs  for  missions  in  projects.  This  option  should  be 
introduced with the 2010 work programmes.  

(9) 

Audit certificates: 

The certification policy for the FP7 Grant Agreements was designed with the aim to correct 
the  deficiencies  in  the  imputation  of  costs  noticed  under  the  previous  research  Framework 
Programmes.  Experience  with  past  Framework  Programmes  has  indeed  evidenced  that  the 
main sources of errors in the costs claimed by beneficiaries relate to the personnel costs and 
indirect  costs,  often  calculated  according  to  a  methodology  which  does  not  conform  to  the 
grant agreement provisions. The objective of the FP7 certification on the methodology is to 
promote the  use  of correct methodologies by beneficiaries when calculating personnel costs 
and indirect costs, in particular in those cases when average personnel costs are claimed. In 
addition to providing better assurance for the sound financial management this new approach 
enables simplification by reassuring certified beneficiaries that the methodology they use will 
not  be  contested  in  case  of  an  audit  if  the  methodology  has  been  correctly  applied,  thus 
limiting  the  risk  of  being  subject  to  recovery  orders.  This  approach  stems  from  the 
strengthened importance attached to accountability  in the frame of  EU  research expenditure 
and the objective to prevent errors in cost claims submitted by FP7 beneficiaries (reduction of 

EN 

62 

   EN 

the  error  rate).  Hence  the  applicable  rules  for  FP7  and  those  of  FP6  differ  considerably  as 
regards average personnel costing methods. It should be kept in mind that the new approach 
implies a number of challenges as detailed in section (10). 

The  7th  Framework  Programme introduced,  in  addition  to  the  certificates  on  the  financial 
statements  which  have  to  be  submitted  after  the  costs  are  being  incurred  and  claimed,  two 
new types of ex-ante certificates on the methodology: 

•  The certificate  on  average  personnel  costs  (CoMAv) which  is mandatory  for  any 
beneficiary intending  to  charge  personnel  costs  based  on  average  personnel  cost 
calculations.  

•  The  certificate  on  the  methodology  for  personnel  and  indirect  costs  (CoM),  optional  for 
any  beneficiary of multiple grants fulfilling the eligibility criteria set by the Commission. 

While  the  CoMAv  is  required  for  any  beneficiary  opting  for  declaring  average  personnel 
costs,  the  CoM  is  based  on  a  voluntary  choice.  In  2007,  the  Commission  established 
eligibility criteria in order to limit the application of the CoM to those recurrent beneficiaries 
for  whom  the  cost-benefit  relation  of  this  certificate  would  be  favourable,  judged  on  the 
number of 'historic' FP6 contract participations. Those criteria were completed at the end of 
November  2008  with  thresholds  related  to  FP7  grant  agreement  participations,  in  order  to 
allow those recurrent FP7 beneficiaries, who were not eligible under the FP6-based eligibility 
criteria, such as certain beneficiaries from the new Member States, to become eligible.  

These  certificates  are  based  on  "agreed  upon  procedures"  established  on  the  basis  of 
international  audit  and  accounting  standards,  in  close  co-ordination  with  the  competent 
European professional audit body53.  

It  must  be  pointed  out  that  while  an  accepted  certification  on  the  methodology  does  by  no 
means bind the Commission to never again put into question costs claimed under FP7 grants, 
nor  the  beneficiary's  underlying  methodology,  it  is  aimed  to  give  the  beneficiaries  and  the 
Commission services reasonable assurance that the methodology used for claiming personnel 
and  indirect  costs  fulfils  certain  minimum  requirements  of  the  FP7  grant,  thereby  avoiding 
that  potential  errors  in  the  methodology  impact  in  a  later  stage  on  payment's  of  FP7  funds 
which would require financial adjustments or recovery orders.  

Moreover, the certification on the methodology enables an important degree of simplification 
in the FP7 grant management process: beneficiaries receiving approval from the Commission 
on their certified methodology for both personnel and indirect costs will not have to submit 
certificates on financial statements for interim  payments. In addition, the final certificate on 
financial statements will be prepared by the auditors by verifying (for personnel and indirect 
costs) the compliance with the declared methodology, thus adding simplification to the audit 
work performed. This should also contribute to the reduction of the cost of the certification 
process  as  a  whole  and  in  particular  for  beneficiaries  participating  in  several  grants 
agreements.  The  ideal  target  for  the  provision  of  this  kind  of  certification  is  typically 
beneficiaries of multiple grants which have an established methodology for calculating their 
rates.  As  the  certification  of  the  methodology  is  intended  to  be  valid  throughout  the  whole 
FP7, it is clear that they will benefit from this exercise.  

53 

FEE – Fédération des Experts Comptables Européens 

EN 

63 

   EN 

                                                 
(10)  Two  challenges:  Average  personnel  costs  and  review  of  transitional  flat-rate  of

60% for indirect costs 

Average personnel costs: 

The Commission has the political commitment to deliver in FP7 concrete measures towards 
simplification  of  reporting  and  costing  requirements  for  beneficiaries.  One  major 
simplification  intended  by  the  FP7  rules  for  participation  was  the  explicit  acceptance  of  the 
use of average personnel costs as a commonly used accounting practice. Indeed the FP7 Rules 
for participation and dissemination provide that average personnel costs may be used if they 
are consistent with the management principles and accounting practices of the participant and 
do  not  differ  significantly  from  actual  costs.  The  FP7  grant  agreement  further  details  that 
beneficiaries may opt to declare average personnel costs if based on a certified methodology 
approved  by  the  Commission  and  consistent  with  the  management  principles  and  usual 
accounting  practices  of  the  beneficiary.  Average  personnel  costs  charged  by  a  beneficiary 
having provided a certificate on the methodology are deemed not to significantly differ from 
actual personnel costs.  

Neither  the  meaning  of  "significant  deviation"  nor  the  indicators  and  criteria  to  be  used  to 
assess  the  average  personnel  costs  methodologies  are  specified  in  the  FP7  legal  texts.  It  is 
therefore up to the Commission to establish the criteria under which average personnel cost 
methodologies can be approved. 

Striving to balance the demands of simplification and ensuring the legality and regularity of 
expenditure, the Commission services are occupied with assessing several possibilities for the 
acceptability  criteria  of  the  average  personnel  rates  methodologies  in  full  knowledge  of  the 
fact  that  the  decision  on  the  implementation  rules  of  these  costs  will  directly  impact  the 
Commission's time-to-pay track record under FP7. 

Review of transitional flat-rate of 60% for indirect costs  

According  to  article  32.554  of  the  EC  FP7  Rules  for  Participation  and  dissemination,  the 
Commission is responsible for the review of the current 60 % transitional flat rate and must 
establish  a  new  rate  applicable  for  grants  awarded  under  calls  closing  after  31  December 
2009.  The  same  article  states  that  the  new  flat  rate  should  be  an  approximation  of  the  real 
indirect costs concerned but not lower than 40 %.  

The revision of the transitional flat rate is aimed to promote the shift of transitional flat rate 
beneficiaries  (typically  those  who  were  using  the  additional  cost  model  in  previous  FPs) 
towards  actual  cost  methodologies,  with  a  view  to  encourage  the  modernisation  and  foster 
sustainability of the financial management of European public research entities. Even though 

54 

"Non-profit public bodies, secondary and higher education establishments, research organisations and 
SMEs  which  are  unable  to  identify  with  certainty  their  real  indirect  costs  for  the  action  concerned, 
when  participating  in  funding  schemes  which  include  research  and  technological  development  and 
demonstration activities, as referred to in Article 33, may opt for a flat rate equal to 60 % of the total 
direct  eligible  costs  for  grants  awarded  under  calls  for  proposals  closing  before  1  January  2010.  

With  a  view  to  facilitating  a  transition  to  full  application  of  the  general  principle  established  in 
paragraph  2,  the  Commission  shall  establish,  for  grants  awarded  under  calls  closing  after  31 
December 2009, an appropriate level of flat rate which should be an approximation of the real indirect 
costs concerned but not lower than 40 %. This will be based on an evaluation of participation by non-
profit public bodies, secondary and higher education establishments, research organisations and SMEs 
which are unable to identify with certainty their real indirect costs for the action concerned." 

EN 

64 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
the perception of this revision and its potential impact at the level of the stakeholders differs 
widely  from  one  Member  State/Associated  Country  to  another,  the  final  outcome  of  such 
revision  is  evidently  a  major  concern  for  those  beneficiaries  currently  participating  in  FP7 
under the transitional flat rate regime.  

Information was collected on this issue through the network of Legal and Financial National 
Contact Points (NCPs). Despite the fact that many of the concerned beneficiaries, in certain 
cases supported by national initiatives, have launched initiatives for the modernisation of their 
accounting  systems,  few  have  at  this  stage  effectively  shifted  to  actual  costs  methodologies 
and only a limited number consider themselves in a position to do so by 2010. Moreover the 
report  of  the  expert  group  on  'Diversified  funding  streams  for  university-based  research: 
impact of external project-based research funding on financial management in Universities' 
currently  still  in  draft,  leads  to  similar  conclusions:  Whilst  there  is  a  will  at  the  level  of 
European  universities  to  move  towards  actual  costs  in  a  context  of  management 
modernisation, most entities will not be ready for such change by 2010. Therefore, although a 
reduction  of  the  transitional  flat  rate  would  be  recommended  in  order  to  "encourage" 
beneficiaries  to  advance  in  the  path  of  accounting  modernisation,  the  expert  group  show 
concerns about the level of preparation of the universities to such change. This opinion is also 
in line with the conclusions of the European University Association55 which pleaded for the 
60 % transitional rate to be maintained for the entirety of FP7.  

Finally,  in  parallel  to  these  external  consultations,  an  analysis  of  data  resulting  from  audits 
performed by the Commission was carried out, aimed to determine the average rate of indirect 
costs for those beneficiaries declaring actual costs. The results of this analysis concluded that, 
on average, the actual indirect costs of the beneficiaries audited (over FP6) was equivalent to 
66,65 % of the direct cost minus subcontracting. Although the number of cases sampled for 
this  analysis  was  limited  and  the  profile  of  these  beneficiaries  does  not  necessarily  match 
those who are eligible for the transitional flat rate, the results of this exercise suggest that the 
60 % flat rate is indeed in line with empirical data. 

On the basis of the above elements the Commission decision on the new FP7 transitional flat 
rate will be made by the end of 2009.  

4.1.2.  Executive Agencies: New Structures Entrusted with the FP Implementation  

Quite different in terms of magnitude of scope from the achievements described above, two 
Executive  Agencies  have  been  set  up  by  the  Commission  in  late  2007  (the  first  ever  to  be 
engaged in an FP implementation): The Research Executive Agency (REA) and the European 
Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA), presented in section 3.3 above. 

By outsourcing the implementation of parts of the Framework Programme to these agencies, a 
more effective and efficient management is being pursued by clearly differentiating between 
the  Commission's  responsibilities  for  policy  development  and  monitoring  and  the  agencies' 
responsibilities  to  implement  the  FP  under  the  policy  guidance  of  the  Commission.  It  is 
expected that economies will result from this outsourcing and it will enable the Commission 
to respond better to the challenges  of  managing  increasing  budgets with constant resources. 
The  Commission's  evaluation  of  both  REA  and  ERCEA  after  the  first  three  years  of 
operation,  including  an  assessment  of  economies  yielded,  will  provide  a  valuable  input  for 

55 

"EUA Statement on FP7 Rules of Participation proposals for support rates and costs models", 30 March 
2006. 

EN 

65 

   EN 

                                                 
decisions on the design and management of its future research policy with due consideration 
being given to the budgetary constraints on the Commission's administrative budget. 

Although the first two and a half years of FP7 have seen extensive efforts by the Commission 
services  to  establish  outsourcing  as  a  means  for  implementing  the  FP  and  progress  in 
establishing the two research executive agencies has been more rapid than in previous cases, 
the  creation  of  an  agency  during  the  implementation  of  FP7  has  not  proved  ideal  due  to 
transition problems. Outsourcing would be more effectively implemented if the administrative 
processes involved were concluded before the operational processes are planned to take place. 
In short, if further outsourcing is foreseen for future FPs, then ideally such outsourcing should 
be in place before the new FP begins, with the outsourcing structures foreseen being approved 
at the same time as the FP is approved. 

The  Executive  Agencies  are  facing  a  major  challenge  with  respect  to  their  forthcoming 
autonomy (i.e. effective assumption of responsibility) in mid-2009 for the management of the 
programmes falling under their mandate. They will have to demonstrate that they can provide 
for  an  efficient  management  of  the  project  life  cycle  for  the  various  grants  managed  under 
their  control  while  delivering  on  the  anticipated  benefits  in  terms  of  cost  savings  to  the 
Community budget. An important dimension of this challenge relates to the setting up of an 
effective  collaboration  between  the  Commission  (as  supervisory  body)  and  the  Executive 
Agencies  to  make  these  outsourcing  arrangements  effective  tools  for  FP7  implementation 
under the political steer of the Commission. 

4.1.2.1.  The Research Executive Agency (REA) 

The REA was set up by Commission Decision 2008/46/EC on 14 December 2007 with a view 
to  taking  over  the  implementation  of  parts  of  the  FP7  Specific  Programmes  "Cooperation" 
(themes  on  Space  and  Security),  "Capacities"  (theme  Research  for  the  benefit  of  specific 
groups - Small and Medium sized Enterprises) and "People".  

It  will  also  provide  general  FP7  support  services  on  proposal  reception/evaluation, 
management of contracts with expert proposal evaluators and legal and financial validation of 
participants.  

The mix of activities to be managed by the REA, ranging from high volume - low complexity 
-  small  value  grants  for  Marie  Curie  individual  fellowships  to  complex  multi-partner  grants 
for  projects  for  Space  &  Security,  makes  this  experiment  a  very  valuable  tool  for  the 
Commission to test the feasibility for outsourcing on a larger scale.  

The  major  challenge  of  the  REA  with  respect  to  its  forthcoming  autonomy  (see  above)  is 
underpinned by the fact that during the transition period Commission staff with responsibility 
for  the  management  of  these  programmes/services are  faced with  decreasing staff levels (as 
services  are  phased  out)  and  have  to  set  up  collaboration  arrangements  with  REA  staff  to 
maintain  continuity  of  service  and  to  arrange  for  on-the-job  training  of  REA  staff  and  an 
orderly handover. 

The  REA  will  have  an  important  role  in  managing  a  single  face  towards  the  research 
community  in  respect  of  proposal  reception,  evaluation  and  expert  handling.  It  will  work 
closely  together  with  the  Commission's  research  DGs  in  implementing  a  single  IT  platform 
(the  participant  portal)  to  serve  FP7  participants,  thereby  overcoming  previously  existing 
variants  implemented  by  the  different  Commission  services.  This  ambitious  target  will  be 
implemented  through  a  modular  approach  where  beneficiaries  will  benefit  from  a  gradually 

EN 

66 

   EN 

improving service. Senior staff and the first 200 of the planned 550 staff have been recruited 
in 2008. 

4.1.2.2.  The European Research Council Executive Agency 

The  European  Research  Council  Executive  Agency  (ERCEA)  was  set  up  by  Commission 
Decision 2008/37/EC of 14 December 2007 to manage the "Ideas" Specific Programme of the 
FP7 as part of the ERC56. A point of significance is that the governance of the ERC involves a 
Scientific  Council  bringing  together  representatives  of  the  scientific  community  (see  also 
section 3.3). The ERCEA's staff was increased in 2008 through recruitment, anticipating the 
increase  in  the  budget  of  the  "Ideas"  Specific  Programme.  By  the  end  of  2008  75  of  the 
planned 389 members of staff were recruited. 

Like REA, the ERCEA will be responsible for a number of activities which are either directly 
related or ancillary to the implementation of its programme. Because of the ERC's mandate 
and the Scientific Council's unique role in the governance of the ERC, the ERCEA will also 
have to perform additional tasks like supporting the Scientific Council and implementing the 
ERC's communication strategy. 

4.2.  Challenges: The Need to Reach an Agreement on the Balance between Trust and 

Risk in Research Funding 

Framework Programmes have been supporting collaborative research in Europe for around a 
quarter of a century with significant impacts on the competitiveness of European industry, on 
the  knowledge  and  skills  of  Europe's  research  teams  and  on  partnership  building  across 
Europe. However, the simplification of their disbursement procedures remains a challenge.  

While  it  is  true  that  further  simplification  could  be  brought  about  by  streamlining  some 
administrative processes between Commission departments, a paradigm change is needed in 
the regulatory environment to make a true and lasting breakthrough. There is an apparent and 
pressing need to agree, inside and outside the Commission, with all important actors (Court of 
Auditors, the European Parliament, the Council), where the balance will have to lie between 
risk  exposure  fought  against  with  extensive  auditing  on  one  side  and  trust  and  freedom 
allowing a number of errors on the other57. 

A  Commission  Communication  on  simplification  is  planned  for  2010,  which  would  be  the 
occasion for reflecting on these issues and for taking account of the ongoing dialogue with the 
Legislative Authority and the Court of Auditors in respect of the concept of the tolerable risk 
of error58.  

The  change  of  the  legal  framework  is  a  sine  qua  non  for  further  simplification.  Significant 
changes to the legal framework would be in line with comments from the Court of Auditors 
which  has  recommended  in  its  "Annual  report  on  the  2007  EU  budget"  that  project 

56 

57 

58 

Commission Decision No 2008/37/EC of 14 December 2007 setting up the European Research Council 
Executive  Agency  for  the  management  of  the  specific  Community  programme  'Ideas'  in  the  field  of 
frontier research in application of Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 (OJ L 9, p.15). 
The  reflections  of  the  High  Level  Group  of  Independent  Stakeholders  on  Administrative  Burdens, 
chaired  by  Edmund  Stoiber,  could  offer  one  of  the  platforms  where  agreement  could  be  based  (see: 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/regulation/better_regulation/high_level_group_is_en_version.htm). 
Following Communication (COM(2008)866 of 16.12.2008, "Towards a common understanding of the 
concept of tolerable risk of error" 

EN 

67 

   EN 

                                                 
management takes on "further simplification and clarification of the rules for the calculation 
and reporting of costs by beneficiaries, where possible introducing a results-based, rather than 
input-based, financing system" and would be in line with the Court's opinion 1/2006 on the 
FP7  proposal  where  it  expresses  its  view  that  "Rules  for  Participation  should  reflect  the 
assumption  that  researchers  participating  in  the  European  RTD  framework  programmes  can 
be  trusted  to  put  public  money  to  its  best  use,  provided  this  remains  within  the  limits 
established by the legal base to ensure effective and adequate control by the Commission". 

On  this  subject,  the  European  Research  Advisory  Board  (ERAB)  opined  on  February  19, 
2009 (see also Annex): 

"To  improve  efficiency,  increase  speed  and  reduce  transaction  costs,  trust  is  a  crucial 
element.  However,  the  current  institutional  system  seems  caught  in  itself,  paralysed  by  the 
political necessity to avoid mistakes rather than managing risks. Economically speaking, the 
associated transaction costs have grown completely out of proportion, with marginal costs of 
controls, checks & balances exceeding their marginal benefits."  

"Use  should  therefore  be  made  of  forthcoming  opportunities  to  revise  this  Financial 
Regulation  and  create  a  partial  exemption  for  research  and  innovation,  to  account  for  a 
certain degree of risk that is inherent to these activities. […][T]he European Parliament and 
the Council [should] enable a risk-tolerant and trust-based approach in research funding, as 
well as real public-private research partnerships."  

If they are to bear fruits for the benefit of the participants in EU research, any such changes 
must be made before the next Framework Programme starts. 

EN 

68 

   EN 

ANNEX 1: 
GLOSSARY 

AAL 

–  Ambient Assisted Living (Art. 169 Initiative) 

ARTEMIS 

–  Embedded Computing Systems Joint Technology Initiative 

BSGM/MC 

–  Research for the benefit of Specific Groups and Marie Curie Actions  

CEWS 

CFSP 

CIP 

–  Continental Early Warning System 

–  Common Foreign and Security Policy 

–  Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme 

Clean Sky 

–  Aeronautics and Air Transport Joint Technology Initiative 

CoM 

–  Certificate on the methodology for personnel and indirect costs 

CoMAv 

–  Certificate on average personnel costs 

CP/CP-CSA 

–  Combination  of  Collaborative  Project  &  Coordination  and  Support 

Action 

CREST 

–  Scientific and Technical Research Committee 

CRPs 

CSA 

CSO 

CWGs 

DIS 

–  Co-operative Research Processes 

–  Coordination and Support Action 

–  Civil Society Organisation 

–  Collaborative Working Groups 

–  Dedicated Implementation Structures 

EDCPT 

–  European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership 

EEI 

EERA 

EG 

EIT  

EIB 

EMRP 

ENIAC 

ENP 

–  European Industrial Initiatives  

–  European Energy Research Alliance 

–  -Expert Group 

–  European Institute of Innovation and Technology 

–  European Investment Bank 

–  European Meteorology Research Programme 

–  Nanoeletronics Technologies 2020 Joint Technology Initiative 

–  European Neighbourhood Partnership 

EN 

69 

   EN 

EPSS 

ERA 

–  Electronic Proposal Submission System 

–  European Research Area 

ERAWATCH 

–  Research Inventory 

ERAB 

ERC 

–  European Research Area Board 

–  European Research Council 

ERCEA 

–  European Research Council Executive Agency 

ESFRI 

–  European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures 

ESR 

ETP 

–  Evaluation Summary Report 

–  European Technology Platform 

EURAB 

–  European Advisory Board 

FCH 

FET 

FP6 

FP7 

–  Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Joint Technology Initiative 

–  Future and Emerging Technologies 

–  Sixth Framework Programme 

–  Seventh Framework Programme 

GEOSS 

–  Global Earth Observation System of Systems 

GIF 

HES 

IAPP 

ICT 

–  Generation IV International Forum 

–  Higher or Secondary Education Organisation 

–  Marie Curie Industry-Academia Pathways and Partnerships 

–  Innovation & Communication Technology 

IHMBC 

–  International Human Microbiome Consortium 

IMI 

IRSES 

JAC 

JRC 

–  Innovative Initiative Medicines Joint Technology Initiative 

–  Marie Curie International Research Staff Exchange Scheme  

–  Joint-Assessment Committee 

–  Joint Research Centre 

KKBB 

–  European Knowledge Based Bio-Economy 

KBBE-NET 

–  Knowledge Based Bio-Economy Network 

JTI 

–  Joint Technology Initiative 

EN 

70 

   EN 

KIC 

LEAR 

N&N 

NCP 

NIH 

NoE 

OMC 

OTH 

PRC 

PSP 

PUB 

RDI 

REA 

REC 

RIC 

RO 

ROs 

–  Knowledge and Innovation Community 

–  Legal Entity Appointed Representative  

–  Nanotechnologies and Nanosciences  

–  National Contact Point 

–  National Institutes of Health (US) 

–  Network of Excellence 

–  Open Method of Coordination 

–  Other 

–  Private for Profit Organisation (excluding Education) 

–  ICT Technologies Policy Support Programme 

–  Public Body (excluding Research and Education)  

–  Research Development Innovation 

–  Research Executive Agency  

–  Research Organisation 

–  Research International Cooperation 

–  -Redress Office 

–  Research Organisations 

RSFF 

–  Risk Sharing Financial Facilities 

SAFMAMS 

–  Scientific Advice for Marine Environmental Management 

SCAR 

–  Standing Committee on Agricultural Research 

ScC 

SDS 

SET 

SETIS 

SF 

SICAs 

SiS 

–  Independent Scientific Council 

–  Sustainable Development Strategy 

–  Strategy Energy Technology 

–  European Energy Technology Information System 

–  Structural Funds 

–  Specific International Coordination Actions 

–  Science in Society 

EN 

71 

   EN 

SRA 

SSH 

URF 

VPH 

WFD 

–  Strategic Research Agenda 

–  Socio-economic Sciences and Humanities 

–  Unique Registration Facility 

–  Virtual Psychological Human Initiative  

–  Water Framework Directive  

WGCM 

–  Working Group on Certification of Methodology 

EN 

72 

   EN 

 
ANNEX 2: 
ERAB VIEWS ON THE CONTRIBUTION OF FP7 INSTRUMENTS TO THE 
ESTABLISHMENT OF A GENUINE EUROPEAN RESEARCH AREA 

EN 

73 

   EN 

 
EN 

74 

   EN 

 
EN 

75 

   EN