Special Report No 8/2009#Networks of excellence and Integrated projects in Community Research policy: did they achieve their objectives?
Date: 2009-06-09
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU control, EU financing, EU programme, EU research policy, Framework Programme for Research and Development, scientific cooperation, technological change

EUROPEAN COURT 
OF AUDITORS

4
3
8
0
-
1
3
8
1
N
S
S

I

9
0
0
2

8
o
N

t
r
o
p
e
R

l

a
i
c
e
p
S

‘NETWORKS OF EXCELLENCE’ 
AND ‘INTEGRATED PROJECTS’ 
IN COMMUNITY RESEARCH POLICY: 
DID THEY ACHIEVE THEIR OBJECTIVES?

EN

 
 
 
 
Special Report No 8 

 2009

‘NETWORKS OF EXCELLENCE’ 
AND ‘INTEGRATED PROJECTS’ 
IN COMMUNITY RESEARCH 
POLICY: DID THEY ACHIEVE 
THEIR OBJECTIVES?

(pursuant to Article 248(4), second subparagraph, EC)

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS

2

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS
12, rue Alcide De Gasperi
1615 Luxembourg
LUXEMBOURG

Tel. +352 4398-45410
Fax +352 4398-46410
E-mail: euraud@eca.europa.eu
Internet: http://www.eca.europa.eu

Special Report No 8 

 2009

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).

Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2009

ISBN 978-92-9207-408-1

doi:10.2865/63596

© European Communities, 2009

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Printed in Belgium

Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives?

CONTENTS

3

Paragraph

GLOSSARY

I–V 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1–16 

1–5  

1–3 
4–5 

6–16 

9–11 
12–16 

INTRODUCTION

OBJECTIVES AND THREATS FACING COMMUNITY RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT (RTD)

POLICY OBJECTIVES
STRUCTURAL WEAKNESSES AND AMBITIONS OF EUROPEAN RESEARCH

THE SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME

THE NEW INSTRUMENTS AND THEIR OBJECTIVES
PROJECT SELECTION AND MANAGEMENT

17–18 

AUDIT SCOPE AND APPROACH

17 
18 

19–56 

19–27 

22–24 
25–27 

28–43 

29–35 
36–38 
39–43 

44–53 

45–46 
47–49 
50 
51 
52–53 

54–56 

55–56 

AUDIT SCOPE
AUDIT APPROACH

AUDIT OBSERVATIONS

CONTRIBUTION TO COMMUNITY RTD OBJECTIVES IN GENERAL

EFFECTIVE RESEARCH COLLABORATION
PROJECT PLANS BETTER THAN IMPLEMENTED PROJECTS IN A NUMBER OF CASES

ACHIEVEMENT OF THE NEW INSTRUMENTS’ SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES

NoEs’ INTEGRATION OFTEN REPLACED BY TRADITIONAL FORM OF COLLABORATION
IPS: LARGE PROJECTS, AND RELATIVELY LOW PARTICIPANTS’ FINANCIAL INVOLVEMENT
SME PARTICIPATION TARGET NOT FULLY ACHIEVED

THE COMMISSION’S MANAGEMENT OF NEW INSTRUMENTS

UNCERTAINTIES ABOUT THE INSTRUMENTS’ SPECIFIC ROLE
MULTIPLE LEGAL PROVISIONS AND NOT ALWAYS SUFFICIENT GUIDANCE
THE NEGOTIATION PROCESS: MORE LENGTHY AND OFTEN NOT TRANSPARENT
FEWER AND LARGER PROJECTS BUT STILL A LARGE NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS
WEAKNESSES IN PROJECT MONITORING

STIMULATION OF RTD INVESTMENT

MORE EU FUNDS FOR RELATIVELY LESS PARTICIPANTS’ RTD INVESTMENT

57–65 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REPLY OF THE COMMISSION

Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives?

 
 
4

Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives?

GLOSSARY

5

European Research Area (ERA): A border-free zone for research, in which scientific resources 
will be better deployed to create more jobs and to improve Europe’s competitiveness.

RTD Framework Programmes (FPs):  Multiannual  programmes  establishing,  for  a  given 
period, the scientific and technological activities to be funded by the Community, their 
budget and the detailed rules for their technical and financial implementation.

RTD Instruments: Different types of projects defined by the FPs. Each instrument addresses 
specific objectives and involves particular participation arrangements.

Networks of Excellence (NoE): Instrument aimed at creating substantial and lasting integra-
tion of the research activities of the network partners, thus directly tackling the fragmenta-
tion of research activities in Europe in a given area.

Integrated Projects (IPs): Instrument designed to achieve ambitious, clearly defined sci-
entific and technological objectives of a European dimension.

Gross domestic product (GDP): The total market value of all final goods and services pro-
duced in a country in a given year.

Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs): Enterprises which employ fewer than 250 per-
sons and which have an annual turnover not exceeding 50 million euro, and/or an annual 
balance sheet total not exceeding 43 million euro.

SMART  objectives:  Specific,  measurable,  achievable,  relevant  and  timed  objectives,  as 
defined by the EU Financial Regulation.

Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives?

6

EXECUTIVE 
REPLY OF THE 
SUMMARY
COMMISSION

I.
E u r o p e a n   r e s e a r c h   i s   h e l d   t o   s u f f e r   f r o m 
i n s u f f i c i e n t   a n d   d i s p e r s e d   i n v e s t m e n t .   A s 
p a r t   o f   t h e   E U   a c t i o n s   t o   r e m e d y   t h i s ,   t h e 
S i x t h   F r a m e w o r k   P r o g r a m m e   ( F P 6 )   i n t r o -
d u c e d   t w o   n e w   i n s t r u m e n t s ,   ‘ N e t w o r k s   o f 
Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’. The aim 
was, on one side, to create a substantial and 
lasting integration of the research activities 
and, on the other side, to achieve ambitious, 
clearly defined scientific and technological 
objectives of a European dimension.

II.
The audit examined to what extent ‘Networks 
of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ had 
contributed  to  achieve  the  research  policy 
objectives set by the Treaty as well as their 
own specific objectives, the Commission had 
e f f e c t i v e l y   m a n a g e d   t h e   n e w   i n s t r u m e n t s 
and FP6 had stimulated RTD investment.

III.
The Court concluded that:

(i) 

T h e   F P 6   i n s t r u m e n t s   a u d i t e d   w e r e 
s u c c e s s f u l   i n   p r o m o t i n g   r e s e a r c h   c o l -
l a b o r a t i o n   a n d   p r o j e c t s   o f   r e a s o n a b l e 
quality. However these instruments have 
o p e r a t e d   i n   t h e   a b s e n c e   o f   a n   e x p l i c i t 
intervention  logic,  as  well  as  of  SMART 
objectives and performance indicators.

(ii) 

The specific objectives of the new instru-
ments were only partially achieved. ‘Net-
w o r k s   o f   E x c e l l e n c e ’   p r o m o t e d   a   g o o d 
level of research collaboration, but often 
did  not  achieve  a  progressive  and  self-
sustainable  integration  of  the  research 
activities between the network partners. 
‘ I n t e g r a t e d   P r o j e c t s ’   p r o m o t e d   h i g h -
q u a l i t y   r e s e a r c h   c o l l a b o r a t i o n ,   b u t   d i d 
not attract more resources from individ-
u a l   p a r t i c i p a n t s   n o r   a d d i t i o n a l   s o u r c e s 
of public and private financing.

Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives?

7

EXECUTIVE 
REPLY OF THE 
SUMMARY
COMMISSION

V.
The Court also recommends that:

(i) 

The Commission should consider whether 
N o E s   a n d   I P - l i k e   c o l l a b o r a t i v e   p r o j e c t s 
have realistic objectives and provide sig-
n i f i c a n t   a d v a n t a g e s   a s   c o m p a r e d   w i t h 
traditional instruments for research col-
l a b o r a t i o n .   C o n c e r n i n g   N o E s   f i n a n c e d 
u n d e r   F P 6 ,   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   s h o u l d 
assess  on  a  case-by-case  basis  whether 
past  achievements,  potential  EU  added 
value and prospects of self-sustainability 
justify further funding under FP7.

(ii) 

T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   s h o u l d   e x a m i n e   t h e 
various reasons underlying the relatively 
low level of participants’ RTD investment 
compared to the goals pursued and pro-
pose specific measures. Appropriate data 
should be made available to monitor the 
catalytic  effect  of  EU  RTD  funding.  The 
realism of expected targets, in particular 
for  SMEs  and  the  private  sector,  should 
be reassessed.

(iii) 

I n   v i e w   o f   i m p r o v i n g   i n   p a r t i c u l a r   t h e 
manageability of projects, their adequate 
implementation  and  appropriate  evalu-
a t i o n ,   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   s h o u l d   e n s u r e 
c l e a r   a n d   t i m e l y   g u i d a n c e ,   a   s p e e d i e r 
c o n t r a c t i n g   p r o c e s s   a n d   b e t t e r   p r o j e c t 
monitoring.

(iii) 

The Commission’s management revealed 
a number of weaknesses, in particular at 
the beginning of the implementation of 
FP6, which affected the effectiveness of 
the actions, in particular the uncertainty 
about the new instruments’ specific role, 
an insufficient guidance and weaknesses 
in project monitoring.

(iv) 

As compared to FP5, FP6 did not succeed 
i n   g e n e r a t i n g   a   s i g n i f i c a n t   i n c r e a s e   i n 
t e r m s   o f   p a r t i c i p a n t s ’   R T D   i n v e s t m e n t . 
T h e   p a r t i c i p a t i o n   o f   t h e   p r i v a t e   s e c t o r 
e v e n   d i m i n i s h e d   i n   r e l a t i v e   t e r m s .   T h e 
target of 15 % of the total budget of FP6 
thematic priorities for SME participation 
was not achieved.

IV.
The Court recalls its previous recommenda-
t i o n   t h a t   s p e n d i n g   p r o g r a m m e s   s h o u l d   b e 
b a s e d   u p o n   a n   e x p l i c i t   i n t e r v e n t i o n   l o g i c , 
l i n k i n g   t h e   i n s t r u m e n t s   t o   r e a l i s t i c   o b j e c -
tives.  In  this  context,  the  possibility  of  set-
ting one single objective for each instrument 
should be considered in order to ensure clar-
ity of the instruments’ specific role. For each 
programme there should be appropriate per-
formance indicators to monitor the expected 
outputs, outcomes and impacts.

Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives?

INTRODUCTION

8

OBJECTIVES AND THREATS FACING COMMUNITY 
RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT (RTD)

POLICY OBJECTIVES

Research and technological development (RTD) has a key influence on 
scientific and technological progress and innovation. Research is an 
important priority for the European Union and its Member States so 
that  the  high  living  standards  of  its  citizens  can  be  maintained  and 
improved.

The overall objectives of the European Community RTD policy 1 are to 
strengthen the scientific and technological bases of Community indus-
t r y   a n d   e n c o u r a g e   i t   t o   b e c o m e   m o r e   c o m p e t i t i v e   a t   i n t e r n a t i o n a l 
level. Undertakings, research centres and universities are encouraged 
to cooperate with one another in high-quality RTD activities to exploit 
the internal market potential to the full.

1. 

2. 

1  Treaty establishing the European 

Community, Title XVIII (Research 

and Technological Development), 

Articles 163 to 173. The activities are 

so defined:

(a) implementation of research, 

technological development and 

demonstration programmes, by 

promoting cooperation with and 

between undertakings, research 

centres and universities;

(b) promotion of cooperation in the 

field of Community research, 

technological development and 

demonstration with third countries 

and international organisations;

(c) dissemination and optimisation 

of the results of activities in 

Community research, technological 

development and demonstration;

(d) stimulation of the training and 

mobility of researchers in the 

Community.

F I G U R E   1

AV E R AG E   A N N UA L   R T D   E X P E N D I T U R E   F R O M  T H E   CO M U N I T Y   B U D G E T   ( F P 4 TO   F P 7 )

7 217

4 061

4 447

3 425

2 761

.

.

a
p
o
r
u
e
n
o

i
l
l
i

m
n

i

8 000

7 000

6 000

5 000

4 000

3 000

2 000

1 000

0

FP4 — EU-12
(1995 to 1998)

FP5 — EU-15
(1999 to 2002)

FP6 — EU-15
(2003 to 2006)

FP6 — EU-25
(2004 to 2006)

FP7 — EU-27
(2007 to 2013)

Source: Legislative decisions for FP4 to FP7 (excludes Euratom).

Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives?

 
 
 
 
 
9

3. 

4. 

5. 

Since 1984, European Community RTD activities have been implemented 
through multiannual Framework Programmes (FPs) which define, for 
a given period, the scientific and technological objectives, the broad 
lines of the activities, the overall budget and its breakdown by action, 
and the detailed rules for Community financial participation. Funding 
i n   s u c c e s s i v e   E U   F r a m e w o r k   P r o g r a m m e s   h a s   i n c r e a s e d   o v e r   t i m e . 
F P s   a r e   t h e   l a r g e s t   s i n g l e   p u b l i c   s o u r c e   o f   r e s e a r c h   f u n d i n g   i n   t h e 
European Union, with an overall share between 4 % and 5 % of total 
public RTD funding.

STRUCTURAL WEAKNESSES AND AMBITIONS 
OF EUROPEAN RESEARCH

European research is widely held to suffer from structural weaknesses. 
The Commission has highlighted that 2:

(a) 

there is insufficient and dispersed investment in RTD;

(b) 

insufficient human resources are devoted to research;

2  See the Commission proposal 

for Council decisions concerning 

the specific programmes 

implementing the Sixth Framework 

Programme, COM(2002) 43 final of 

30.1. 2002, Section 5.1 ‘Need for 

Community intervention’, p. 71.

3  The creation of a European 

Research Area (ERA) was proposed 

by the European Commission 

in its communication ‘Towards 

a European Research Area’ of 

January 2000. The objective of 

creating ERA was endorsed by 

the EU shortly afterwards at the 

March 2000 Lisbon European 

Council.

4  See the Conclusions of the 

European Council of Lisbon, 

March 2000, point 5.

(c) 

there  is  a  limited  capacity  to  translate  scientific  breakthroughs 
into innovative and competitive products and services; and

5  See the Conclusions of the 

European Council of Barcelona, 

March 2002, point 47.

(d) 

research policies in Europe are fragmented.

The Commission and the European Council considered that realising 
an  ‘European  Research  Area’  (ERA)  is  a  key  step  to  overcome  these 
structural weaknesses 3. The ERA would constitute an internal market 
for  research  and  technology,  as  well  as  a  space  for  a  better  coordi-
nation  of  national  and  regional  research  activities  and  policies.  The 
European Council has set for the Union the ambitious goal ‘to become 
the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the 
world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better 
jobs and greater social cohesion’ 4. In this perspective, the European 
r e s e a r c h   e f f o r t   s h o u l d   b e   i n c r e a s e d ,   w i t h   t h e   a i m   o f   a p p r o a c h i n g 
3 % of gross domestic product by 2010 (up from 1,9 % in 2000). Two 
thirds of this new investment should come from the private sector 5.

Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives?

 
 
 
10

THE SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME

6. 

The European Community Sixth Framework Programme (FP6) 6 was an 
instrument  intended  to  assist  in  achieving  the  ambitious  objectives 
mentioned earlier. Its aim was to fund activities contributing both to 
innovation and to the creation of the ERA, by fostering more integra-
tion  and  coordination  in  Europe’s  fragmented  research  sector.  FP6 
covered, for the period 2002 to 2006, the full spectrum from basic to 
applied research, the development of scientific and technical excel-
l e n c e   a n d   t h e   c o o r d i n a t i o n   o f   E u r o p e a n   r e s e a r c h .   T h e   p r o g r a m m e 
was structured around three headings:

 —

integrating and strengthening the European Research Area;

 —

structuring the European Research Area; and

 —

strengthening the foundations of the European Research Area.

6  Decision No 1513/2002/EC of 

the European Parliament and 

of the Council of 27 June 2002 

concerning the sixth framework 

programme of the European 

Community for research, 

technological development 

and demonstration activities, 

contributing to the creation of 

the European Research Area and 

to innovation (2002 to 2006) 

(OJ L 232, 29.8.2002, p. 1).

F I G U R E   2

F P 6  M A I N   CO M P O N E N T S   A N D   B A S I C   P R I N C I P L E S

FP6 Main Components

Integrating
European Research

Structuring
the European 
Research Area

Strengthening
the foundations 
of the ERA

Concentrating
on selected priority 
research areas

FP6 Basic Principles

Structuring eff  ect
through stronger links 
with national, regional 
and other European 
initiatives

Coordination
Simplifi cation

Source:  Commission’s guide ‘Participating in European Research’, 2nd Edition, February 2004

(http://ec.europa.eu/research/fp6/pdf/how-to-participate_en.pdf).

Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives?

 
11

7.  With  a  budget  of  around  17  billion  euro  for  the  years  2002–06,  FP6 
financed until the end of 2008 ‘indirect’ RTD activities worth 25 bil-
lion euro in estimated investments 7. Most expenditure (around 75 %) 
w a s   c a r r i e d   o u t   u n d e r   t h e   h e a d i n g   ‘ I n t e g r a t i n g   a n d   s t r e n g t h e n i n g 
the European Research Area’, within seven ‘thematic priorities’ 8, i.e. 
programmes covering specific themes of research.

7 

‘Indirect’ RTD activities 

designate actions to be 

implemented by grant contractors, 

as opposed to ‘direct’ activities 

carried out by the Commission 

through its Joint Research Centre.

8  The seven ‘thematic priorities’ 

are: life sciences, genomics 

and biotechnology for health; 

information society technologies; 

nanotechnologies and 

nanosciences, knowledge-based 

multifunctional materials, and new 

production processes and devices; 

aeronautics and space; food 

quality and safety; sustainable 

development, global change 

and ecosystems; citizens and 

governance in a knowledge-based 

society.

9  Specific targeted projects, 

coordinated actions, specific 

support projects, Marie Curie 

actions, integrated infrastructure 

initiatives and Article 169 actions.

8. 

9. 

10. 

In view of developing their technological capacity and facilitating their 
access  to  high-quality  research,  FP6  put  special  emphasis  on  small 
and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). An amount of 1,8 billion euro 
was  earmarked  for  this  purpose,  i.e.  15  %  of  the  total  budget  of  the 
thematic  priorities  (one  third  more  than  in  the  previous  Framework 
Programme).

THE NEW INSTRUMENTS AND THEIR OBJECTIVES

In addition to the traditional instruments 9, two new instruments were 
introduced by FP6 aiming especially at ‘Integrating and strengthen-
ing the European Research Area’:

 —

 —

‘Networks of Excellence’ (NoEs) were aimed primarily at creating 
a substantial and lasting integration of the research activities of 
the network partners, thus directly tackling the fragmentation of 
research activities in Europe in a given thematic priority.

‘Integrated  Projects’  (IPs)  were  designed  to  generate  the  know-
ledge required to implement the thematic priorities, by achieving 
ambitious, clearly defined scientific and technological objectives 
of a European dimension.

NoEs and IPs could be carried out in any of the seven ‘thematic priorities’ 
(see footnote 8). These instruments were recognised by the legislator 
as being the main means to generate added value over and above that 
which  could  be  achieved  through  national  efforts  (European  added 
v a l u e ) ,   b y   i n t e g r a t i n g   E u r o p e a n   r e s e a r c h   c a p a c i t i e s .   T h i s   w a s   s u p -
posed to achieve a critical mass in terms of expertise, activities and 
resources (staff, skills, competences, finances, infrastructure, equip-
ment). Also the new instruments were supposed to play an important 
role  in  achieving  the  target  of  spending  15  %  of  the  budget  of  the 
thematic priorities on SME (see paragraph 8).

Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives?

 
 
 
 
12

11. 

Boxes 1 and 2 provide examples of the type of activities carried out in 
‘NoEs’ and ‘IPs’.

10  Together with DG Research, 

which is the main Directorate-

General managing and 

coordinating FP6 activities, 

four other DGs also managed 

parts of specific programmes: 

DG Information Society and 

Media, DG Energy and Transport, 

DG Enterprise and Industry, 

DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries. 

In addition, the DG ‘Joint Research 

Centre’ is in charge of those 

activities which are directly 

implemented by the Commission.

11  See paragraph 25 and 

footnote 19.

PROJECT SELECTION AND MANAGEMENT

12.  Within the Commission, FP6 is a joint responsibility of several Directo-
r a t e s - G e n e r a l   ( D G s ) 1 0.   A s   i n   p r e v i o u s   F r a m e w o r k   P r o g r a m m e s ,   t h e 
Commission published periodically calls for proposals describing the 
broad  areas  of  activity.  Request  for  funding  submitted  by  potential 
b e n e f i c i a r i e s   w e r e   a s s e s s e d   w i t h   t h e   h e l p   o f   i n d e p e n d e n t   e x p e r t s 
( ‘ e v a l u a t o r s ’ ) .   P r o p o s a l s   w e r e   e v a l u a t e d   a g a i n s t   t h e   s c i e n t i f i c   a n d 
technical criteria defined in the call for proposals, including manage-
ment criteria linked with the proposers’ potential capacity to imple-
ment the projects. Projects considered most deserving of EU funding 
were selected by the Commission and grants awarded.

13. 

Project progress was monitored and periodically assessed by the Commis-
sion, including by reference to the objectives specifically assigned to 
each instrument. This monitoring was carried out with the assistance 
of independent experts (reviewers) 11.

B O X   1

W H AT   S O R T   O F   AC T I V I T I E S  W E R E   C A R R I E D   O U T   I N   N o E s?

Every NoE is different. Examples of the specific activities carried out include:

Integration of activities implemented under the NoEs examined included the exchange of PhD students 
and research staff, the organisation of joint workshops, the creation of virtual Internet-based research 
working groups, the establishment of virtual labs and institutes, and the organisation of visits intended 
to provide access to off-site facilities.

Joint research activities implemented under the NoEs examined include the funding of individual research 
projects, often through internal calls for proposals implemented under the responsibility of scientific 
task leaders.

Spreading of excellence activities included visits to industry, participation in international conferences, 
organisation of summer school sessions and other training events, the dissemination of project informa-
tion through a dedicated web page, newsletters, press releases, and the publication of articles.

Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives?

 
 
 
13

14. 

15. 

Projects undertaken under NoEs and IPs attracted almost 50 % of FP6 
funds. According to the Commission’s data under the Seventh Frame-
w o r k   P r o g r a m m e   ( 2 0 0 7 – 1 3 )   N o E s   a n d   t h o s e   c o l l a b o r a t i v e   p r o j e c t s 
that assume IP characteristics received 16 % of the total FP7 funding 
allocated up to February 2009. 12

FP6 financed 167 projects as NoEs, involving some 5 000 participants 
and a cumulative EU contribution of 1,2 billion euro (against eligible 
investment costs of 1,9 billion euro). On average, each NoE involved 
around 30 partners and an EU contribution of 7 million euro per con-
tract. Almost 700 projects were financed as ‘IPs’. They involved some 
17  000  participants  and  a  cumulative  EU  contribution  of  6,5  billion 
euro (against eligible investment costs of 10,7 billion euro). On aver-
age,  each  IP  involved  around  25  partners  and  an  EU  contribution  of 
9,5 million euro per contract.

12  Decision No 1982/2006/

EC of the European Parliament 

and of the Council of 

18 December 2006 concerning the 

seventh framework programme 

of the European Community 

for research, technological 

development and demonstration 

activities, (2007 to 2013)

(OJ L 412, 30.12.2006, p. 1). 

Under FP7, ‘Collaborative 

Projects’ may include the 

activities previously carried out 

by ‘Integrated Projects’.

16.  Overall, FP6 available funds permitted the financing of only one out of 
five proposals received. This ratio is similar to that of the US National 
Science Foundation funding schemes, but lower than that of the pre-
v i o u s   F r a m e w o r k   P r o g r a m m e   ( 2 6   % ) .   A   h i g h e r   p r o p o r t i o n   o f   ‘ N o E ’ 
proposals were financed compared to ‘IP’ projects.

B O X   2

W H AT   S O R T   O F   AC T I V I T I E S  W E R E   C A R R I E D   O U T   I N   I Ps?

The activities covered by a project carried under IPs fall within one of the following categories:

• 

• 

• 

research and technological development activities directly aimed at creating new knowledge, includ-
ing innovation-related and dissemination activities;

demonstration activities designed to prove the viability of new technologies that offer a potential 
economic advantage but which cannot be commercialised directly (e.g. testing of prototypes);

training activities intended to contribute to the professional development of researchers and other 
key staff, research managers, industrial executives (in particular for SMEs), and potential users of 
the knowledge generated by the project.

Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives?

 
 
 
AUDIT SCOPE AND APPROACH

14

AUDIT SCOPE

17. 

The objectives of the audit were to assess to what extent:

13  Austria, Belgium, Denmark, 

Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, 

N e t w o r k s   o f   E x c e l l e n c e   a n d   I n t e g r a t e d   P r o j e c t s   c o n t r i b u t e d   t o 
achieve  the  research  policy  objectives  set  by  the  Treaty  as  well 
as their own specific objectives.

Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, 

Portugal, the Slovak Republic, 

Spain, Sweden and the United 

 —

 —

Kingdom.

14  Round tables were organised 

with the assistance of the 

FP6 National Contact Point 

coordinators in Finland, France, 

Poland, Spain and the United 

Kingdom.

The Commission effectively supported the projects’ implementa-
tion, by providing the necessary guidance to beneficiaries, manag-
ing the contracts and monitoring the progress achieved; and

 —

FP6 had stimulated RTD investment.

AUDIT APPROACH

18. 

Audit evidence was collected through:

 —

Review  of  documentation  on  FP6  (preparatory  documents,  legal 
framework and Commission guidance, implementation data).

 —

V i s i t s   t o   3 6   p r o j e c t   c o o r d i n a t o r s   a n d   p a r t i c i p a n t s   i n v o l v e d   i n 
14 projects in 15 different Member States 13.

 —

A   s e r i e s   o f   ‘ r o u n d   t a b l e ’   d i s c u s s i o n s   w i t h   6 0   r e s e a r c h e r s   f r o m 
44 different organisations participating in FP6 14.

 —

A survey of 387 RTD organisations (274 programme participants, 
104 proposers and nine non-participants).

 —

An  analysis  of  selected  management  areas  playing  a  key  role  in 
the performance of the instruments (including the review of the 
i m p l e m e n t a t i o n   o f   e i g h t   c a l l s   f o r   p r o p o s a l s   a n d   a n   a n a l y s i s   o f 
t h e   c o n c l u s i o n s   o f   3 9 9   i n d e p e n d e n t   p r o j e c t   r e v i e w s   c o n d u c t e d 
before 31 December 2007).

 —

T h e   r e v i e w   o f   s e c o n d a r y   e v i d e n c e   o n   t h e   e f f e c t i v e n e s s   o f   t h e 
instruments.

 —

C o n s i d e r a t i o n   o f   t h e   o p i n i o n s   e x p r e s s e d   b y   s o m e   a s s o c i a t i o n s 
active in Community research.

Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives?

 
 
AUDIT OBSERVATIONS

15

19. 

20. 

21. 

CONTRIBUTION TO COMMUNITY RTD OBJECTIVES 
IN GENERAL

According to the EC Treaty, Community RTD policy has the overall aim 
to  strengthen  the  scientific  and  technological  bases  of  Community 
industry  and  to  encourage  it  to  become  more  competitive  at  inter-
national level.

15  Special Report No 9/2007 

concerning ‘Evaluating the EU 

Research and Technological 

Development (RTD) framework 

In the framework of a previous audit in the field of research, the Court 
pointed out the lack of an explicit intervention logic, explaining how 
t h e   d i f f e r e n t   i n s t r u m e n t s   a n d   p r o g r a m m e s   w e r e   s u p p o s e d   t o   c o n -
tribute to Community RTD goals 15. In addition, no SMART objectives 16 
and performance indicators were defined for the individual research 
programmes,  thus  undermining  the  basis  for  sound  monitoring  and 
evaluation 17.

Bearing in mind the lack of an explicit intervention logic 18, the Court has 
examined the contribution of the new instruments to the Community 
RTD policy in general as regards the following aspects:

 —

T h e   e f f e c t i v e n e s s   o f   t h e   r e s e a r c h   c o l l a b o r a t i o n   p u t   i n   p l a c e ; 
and

 —

T h e   s c i e n t i f i c   q u a l i t y   o f   i n d i v i d u a l   p r o j e c t s   a s   a s s e s s e d   b y   t h e 
experts.

programmes — Could the 

Commission’s approach be 

improved?’ (see paragraphs 22 

to 37) (OJ C 26, 30.1.2008). 

Intervention logic is defined by 

the Commission as ‘the conceptual 

link from an intervention’s 

inputs to the production of its 

outputs and, subsequently, to its 

impacts on society in terms of 

results and outcomes’ (European 

Commission, ‘Evaluating EU 

activities: A practical guide for the 

Commission services’, July 2004, 

pp. 87 and 106).

16  SMART stands for specific, 

measurable, achievable, relevant 

and timed. The definition of 

SMART objectives constitutes 

a general principle of the EU 

Financial Regulation to ensure 

sound financial management (see 

Article 27(3) of Council Regulation 

(EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 

(OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1)).

17  See paragraphs 28 and 30 of Special Report No 9/2007.

18  For example, the impact of the absence of an explicit intervention logic was already highlighted in 2004 by the panel in charge of 

the Five-year Assessment 1999–2003, which stated that ‘…panels like ours are asked to fill a gap between, on the one side, evidence 

mainly collected at project level and, on the other side, the higher level socio-economic goals of research policy. However, at the 

moment the link is difficult to make due to the way the FP is planned. It lacks an explicit logic connecting the highest objectives 

to the specific research and knowledge goals’ ‘Five-year Assessment of the European Union Research Framework Programmes, 

1993–2003’, Report of the Independent Expert Panel chaired by Erkki Ormala (15 December 2004): Section 6 ‘Evaluating the 

Framework Programme’, p. 19.

Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives?

 
 
 
16

22. 

23. 

EFFECTIVE RESEARCH COLLABORATION

The effectiveness of research collaboration was assessed by reference to 
the actual achievement of project deliverables, the transfer of exist-
ing and new scientific knowledge as well as the use of good practices 
concerning the way in which research is carried out.

The Court concludes that the FP6 instruments covered by the audit had 
p r o m o t e d   a   g o o d   l e v e l   o f   r e s e a r c h   c o l l a b o r a t i o n   b e t w e e n   p r o j e c t 
participants. Indeed:

 —

 —

I n   t h e   C o u r t ’ s   v i e w   a l l   t h e   p r o j e c t s   v i s i t e d   w e r e   s u c c e s s f u l   i n 
promoting international research collaboration between organi-
sations from different sectors and disciplines.

The assessment made by independent experts shows that the col-
laboration  between  project  participants  was  effective  in  a  large 
majority of cases (see Figure 3).

F I G U R E   3

R E V I E W E R S’  A S S E S S M E N T   O F   R E S E A R C H   CO L L A B O R AT I O N   AC H I E V E D

REVIEWERS’ ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COLLABORATION

Has the collaboration between the participants been eff  ective?

NoEs
101 projects

1 %

32 %

IPs
298 projects

1 %

23 %

Yes

Partially

No

67 %

76 %

Source: European Court of Auditors — Horizontal analysis of project review reports as at 31 December 2007.

Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives?

 
 
17

24.  Moreover, the survey of participants reveals an overall satisfaction with 
the  two  instruments  audited  (see  Figure  4).  NoEs  were  found  to  be 
p a r t i c u l a r l y   s u c c e s s f u l   b y   p u b l i c   r e s e a r c h   c e n t r e s   a n d   u n i v e r s i t i e s , 
while private partners (including SMEs) considered collaboration less 
fruitful. Concerning IPs, the cooperation was considered effective by 
both public and private partners.

F I G U R E   4

PA R T I C I PA N T S’  P E R C E P T I O N   O F  T H E   P R O J E C T ’S   E F F E C T I V E N E S S

How satisfactory do you consider project in terms of …

Coordinators

Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

NoE

IP

... the promotion of high-quality research collaboration 
between project participants

... the networking of participants

... coordinating the strategic planning of the participants’ 
research activities

... transfer of knowledge between participants

... the promotion of the mobility of research staff  between 
participants

100 %

100 %

86 %

100 %

89 %

0 %

0 %

14 %

0 %

11 %

98 %

97 %

89 %

97 %

80 %

2 %

3 %

11 %

3 %

20 %

Participants

Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

... the promotion of high-quality research collaboration 
between project participants

... the networking of participants

... coordinating the strategic planning of the participants’ 
research activities

... transfer of knowledge between participants

... the promotion of the mobility of research staff  between 
participants

92 %

94 %

83 %

97 %

89 %

Source: Survey conducted by the European Court of Auditors.

8 %

6 %

17 %

3 %

11 %

92 %

98 %

80 %

88 %

64 %

8 %

2 %

20 %

12 %

36 %

Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives?

 
18

25. 

26. 

PROJECT PLANS BETTER THAN IMPLEMENTED PROJECTS 
IN A NUMBER OF CASES

Project quality is associated with the concept of scientific and tech-
n o l o g i c a l   e x c e l l e n c e   a n d   t h e   d e g r e e   o f   i n n o v a t i o n .   I t   i s   a   n o r m a l 
practice for research projects that their quality be assessed by peers. 
For  FP6,  independent  experts  were  involved  in  the  initial  selection 
of proposals as well as in the monitoring and evaluation of projects 
implemented 19.

Project reviewers’ ex post assessment is based on:

 —

the progress towards the achievement of its objectives;

 —

the adequate use of resources;

19  ‘Evaluators’ participate in the 

evaluation process, assessing the 

merits of each of the proposals 

received against the criteria 

defined by the Commission in the 

corresponding call for proposals. 

Based on the evaluators’ 

assessment, the Commission 

decides which proposals deserve 

to be funded. ‘Reviewers’ intervene 

well after the project has actually 

started. They periodically assess 

progress achieved by a given 

project during a reference period, 

on the basis of an assessment 

 —

the degree to which research collaboration has been effective;

form prepared by the Commission. 

 —

the soundness of project management, and

Based on this assessment, the 

Commission decides whether 

the project may continue or if, 

 —

the use and dissemination of knowledge arising from the project.

on the contrary, it should be 

terminated before the planned 

completion date. ‘Evaluators’ and 

‘Reviewers’ are selected from the 

same database constituted by the 

Commission at the start of the 

programme.

F I G U R E   5

R E V I E W E R S’  A S S E S S M E N T   O F   P R O J E C T   Q UA L I T Y

OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE PROJECT’S QUALITY

NoEs
101 projects

39 %

19 %

0 %

42 %

Good to excellent project

Acceptable project

Unsatisfactory project

No reply

18 %

2 %

44 %

IPs
298 projects

36 %

Source: European Court of Auditors — Horizontal analysis of project review reports as at 31 December 2007.

Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives?

 
 
19

27. 

28. 

The  Court’s  analysis  of  the  experts’  review  reports  shows  that  more 
than  one  third  of  projects  were  qualified  as  ‘good  to  excellent’  (see 
 Figure 5). Only six out of 399 projects implemented as NoEs and IPs 
were considered unsatisfactory. However, a large number of projects 
(174 projects, or 44 % of all projects reviewed) were assessed as not 
m o r e   t h a n   ‘ a c c e p t a b l e ’ .   C o n s i d e r i n g   t h a t   e x p e r t s   h a d   q u a l i f i e d   a l l 
projects  as  ‘excellent’  at  the  time  of  their  selection  by  the  Commis-
sion,  the  review  results  indicate  that  project  quality  is  declining  in 
the implementation phase.

ACHIEVEMENT OF THE NEW INSTRUMENTS’ 
SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES

As previously indicated (see paragraphs 9 and 10), NoEs were aimed pri-
marily at creating a substantial and lasting integration of the research 
activities of the network partners. IPs were designed to generate the 
knowledge required to implement the thematic priorities, by achiev-
ing ambitious, clearly defined scientific and technological objectives 
of a European dimension. For both instruments, the emphasis was on 
integrating  a  ‘critical  mass’  of  expertise,  activities  and  resources  as 
a pre-condition for long-term research activities and partnerships as 
well as for achieving a real impact in scientific, industrial or economic 
terms.  The  specific  target  for  SMEs  has  to  be  considered  in  view  of 
their crucial role in the European economy.

NOES’ INTEGRATION OFTEN REPLACED BY TRADITIONAL 
FORM OF COLLABORATION

29. 

In view of assessing the extent to which NoEs had achieved their specific 
objective of promoting durable integration of the research activities 
of the network partners, the Court analysed whether:

 —

The resources put into the network could be considered significant 
in relation to each participant’s overall budget.

 —

NoEs had significant control on the deployment of the resources 
made available for the project.

 —

The  high-level  researchers  initially  envisaged  had  actually  been 
involved in the project.

 —

NoEs  had  progressed  towards  long-term  research  activities  and 
partnerships beyond the duration of Community funding.

Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives?

 
 
 
20

30. 

The  Court  considers  that,  notwithstanding  their  success  in  promot-
ing  research  collaboration  and  projects  of  reasonable  quality,  NoEs 
audited have not achieved their specific objective. In particular:

(a) 

Most participants allocated a relatively small proportion of their 
research capacities to the network.

(b) 

NoEs failed to reach control over resources made available and to 
ensure the adequate coordination of project activities. Participant 
o r g a n i s a t i o n s   d i d   n o t   a c c e p t   t h a t   N o E s ’   g o v e r n a n c e   s t r u c t u r e s 
decide how networked resources should be used.

(c) 

In most cases the involvement of key high-level scientists in NoEs 
was not realised.

(d) 

S e l f - s u s t a i n a b l e   l o n g - t e r m   r e s e a r c h   a c t i v i t i e s   a n d   p a r t n e r s h i p s 
were not achieved for any of the audited NoEs, thus making future 
collaboration subject to continued public support.

20  See Evaluation of the 

effectiveness of the New 

Instruments of Framework 

Programme VI. Report 

of the High-Level Expert 

Panel chaired by Professor 

R. Marimon, 21 June 2004 

(http://cordis.europa.eu/fp6/

instruments_review/).

21  See Expert Group on the 

future of Networks of Excellence, 

Final Report, September 2008, 

pp. 16 and 47.

31. 

32. 

33. 

The results of the project reviews carried out by the independent experts 
s h o w   t h a t   f u l l   r e s t r u c t u r i n g   o f   a c t i v i t i e s   a n d   i n t e g r a t i o n   b e t w e e n 
p a r t n e r s   t o o k   p l a c e   i n   l e s s   t h a n   t w o   t h i r d s   o f   t h e   N o E s   a s s e s s e d 
(59  out  of  101).  Already  in  2004,  a  previous  report 20  acknowledged 
t h e   d i f f i c u l t i e s   o f   N o E s   i n   a c h i e v i n g   t h e   r e q u i r e d   ’ d u r a b l e   i n t e g r a -
tion‘. More recently, a study carried out on behalf of the Commission 21 
c o n f i r m e d   t h a t   o n l y   a   m i n o r i t y   o f   N o E s   h a v e   m o v e d   c o n v i n c i n g l y 
towards  self-sustainable  integration  with  prospects  for  longer-term 
survival beyond the ending of EU funding.

NoEs often put in place only traditional forms of research collaboration 
on individual actions, instead of coherent and long-term joint activi-
ties and partnerships.

Two main factors can explain the difficulty that NoEs have in achiev-
i n g   l a s t i n g   i n t e g r a t i o n .   F i r s t l y ,   t h e   g o a l   o f   s e t t i n g   u p   a   n e w   k i n d 
of  intra-European  network,  by  integrating  institutions  previously  in 
c o m p e t i t i o n   w i t h   e a c h   o t h e r ,   r e q u i r e s   a   n e w   a p p r o a c h   t o   r e s e a r c h 
collaboration.  The  reluctance  of  many  organisations  to  engage  in  a 
long-term commitment did not favour this aim. Public research cen-
tres, at the heart of the NoEs’ objective, found difficulties in integrat-
ing with each other due to their institutional structure and budgetary 
constraints. For industry, the treatment of intellectual property was 
a matter of particular concern.

Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives?

 
 
 
 
21

34. 

35. 

Secondly,  there  are  areas  where  substantial  integration  can  only  be 
achieved progressively. In practice, the maximal duration of five years 
proved not to be realistic. However, in several cases (five of the eight 
NoEs visited) the project duration had been even reduced during the 
negotiation stage.

The fact that most NoEs financed under FP6 have not reached durable 
integration  raises  the  question  as  to  the  conditions  under  which  it 
is  justified  to  continue  their  financing  beyond  the  initial  duration, 
under the ongoing Seventh Framework Programme (FP7).

B O X   3

L I G H T   A N D   S H A D E   CO N C E R N I N G   N o E   P E R F O R M A N C E

One NoE assessed by the Court concerned a project in the field of information society technologies involv-
ing a consortium of a large number of both private (SMEs and large industries) and public participants 
(universities). The consortium had been assembled in order to structure fragmented European research 
in the specific scientific field, reduce duplication, boost excellence and spread scientific knowledge.

The Court reviewed the project’s achievements based on project documentation and interviews with 
representatives of three participants audited. The opinion expressed by the independent experts who 
carried out the project reviews was taken into account. The Court concluded that the project contrib-
uted to sharing new knowledge and to transferring pre-existing knowledge. Research collaboration 
was promoted and new knowledge generated and disseminated through websites, the participation 
and organisation of conferences, etc. This knowledge had potential commercial applications. A ‘Virtual 
Centre of Excellence’(VCE) was created (a web portal built by project participants containing updated 
information on public and private research in the specific scientific field). A school in the specific field 
of the project has been created by several participants.

At the end of the project, the consortium requested additional funding for a second project phase, 
which was obtained. The participants visited declared that their involvement in the integrating activi-
ties undertaken depended on the availability of additional EU funds. Once the funding ceased, it would 
be impossible to maintain these activities.

Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives?

 
 
22

36. 

37. 

IPS: LARGE PROJECTS, AND RELATIVELY LOW PARTICIPANTS’ 
FINANCIAL INVOLVEMENT

Integrated Projects were designed to generate the knowledge required 
to implement the thematic priorities, by achieving ambitious objec-
tives of a European dimension.

The effectiveness of IPs was assessed by the Court for a sample of projects, 
according to the following criteria:

 —

Vertical integration of the full ‘value-chain’ of stakeholders, from 
those  involved  in  knowledge  production  through  to  technology 
development and transfer.

 —

Horizontal integration of a range of multidisciplinary activities.

 —

Activity  integration:  integrating  various  research  activities  from 
f u n d a m e n t a l   t o   a p p l i e d   r e s e a r c h   a n d   w i t h   o t h e r   t y p e s   o f   a c t i v -
ity, including take-up activities, protection and dissemination of 
knowledge, and training.

 —

S e c t o r a l   i n t e g r a t i o n   o f   a c t o r s   f r o m   p r i v a t e   a n d   p u b l i c   s e c t o r 
research  organisations,  and  in  particular  between  academia  and 
industry, including SMEs.

 —

Financial integration of public and private funding.

B O X   4

L I G H T   A N D   S H A D E   CO N C E R N I N G   I Ps  P E R F O R M A N C E

An Integrated Project was created to develop an innovative environment-friendly packaging based on 
renewable materials, being of positive value to both producers and the consumers. The IP assembled 
the main producers of the raw material and of the final product in order to create synergies. The esti-
mated cost of activities to be carried out within the project exceeded 25 million euro (56,5 % of which 
was financed by the Community).

The project succeeded in integrating stakeholders within several business areas (vertical integration), 
from the public and private sectors (sectoral integration), from different disciplines (horizontal integra-
tion), both fundamental and applied (activity integration). However, the project did not attract any other 
source of funding contributing to the achievement of the project goals. This situation has prevented 
the achievement of financial integration, associated with this specific FP6 instrument.

Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives?

 
 
23

38. 

39. 

40. 

41. 

The evidence shows that the audited IPs have achieved, in general, the 
objectives  pursued  in  their  research  field  and  have  mobilised  a  sig-
n i f i c a n t   v o l u m e   o f   r e s o u r c e s   ( h u m a n ,   f i n a n c i a l ,   t e c h n i c a l ) .   T h i s   i s 
d u e   i n   p a r t i c u l a r   t o   a   l o n g e r   d u r a t i o n   a n d   a n   i n c r e a s e d   n u m b e r   o f 
participants when compared to pre-existing instruments 22. However, 
t h e   a u d i t e d   I P s   h a v e   n o t   s u c c e e d e d   i n   a t t r a c t i n g   a d d i t i o n a l   p u b l i c 
and private funding.

SME PARTICIPATION TARGET NOT FULLY ACHIEVED

SMEs play a key role in the European economy, given their weight in the 
business sector and their importance in employment. As mentioned 
in paragraph 8, FP6 sought to take their particular needs into account 
and set for this purpose a target of at least 15 % of the total budget 
for the FP6 thematic priorities, as compared to 10 % in FP5 23.

22  Specific targeted projects.

23  In addition to the funding 

foreseen under the thematic 

priorities, FP6 included a specific 

programme area intended to 

support horizontal research 

activities involving SMEs 

(EUR 475 million).

24  Also FP7 has a similar target 

for SMEs (at least 15 % of 

the funding available under 

the ‘Cooperation’ part of the 

programme). Commission data 

(October 2008) show that SME 

participation accounts for 8,2 % of 

project participations and 8,5 % 

of the EC contribution awarded.

Figure 6 shows that, although more SMEs were involved in RTD projects 
when compared to FP5, the EC contribution allocated to SMEs under 
FP6 has decreased both in relative and absolute terms. The Commis-
s i o n ’ s   b e s t   e s t i m a t e   i n d i c a t e s   t h a t   n o   m o r e   t h a n   1 0   %   o f   t h e   t o t a l 
b u d g e t   f o r   t h e   F P 6   t h e m a t i c   p r i o r i t i e s   w a s   a l l o c a t e d   t o   S M E s ,   r e p -
r e s e n t i n g   s o m e   1 , 2   b i l l i o n   e u r o .   T h i s   i s   a   l o w e r   r a t e   t h a n   a c h i e v e d 
under FP5 Thematic Programmes (12 %, representing around 1,4 bil-
lion euro). FP6 has not succeeded in giving a significant stimulus to 
SMEs’ RTD investment in the thematic priorities. Concerning FP7, first 
results show that the participation of SMEs is further declining 24.

There are objective difficulties in raising SMEs’ participation. They have 
a   m o r e   l o c a l / r e g i o n a l   d i m e n s i o n   a n d   f a c e   b y   n a t u r e   h i g h e r   e n t r y 
barriers,  mainly  caused  by  the  complex  application  procedures  and 
the  costs  of  submitting  proposals.  Cooperation  with  large  research 
organisations can be hindered by higher financial and technical risks. 
A l s o ,   l i k e   f o r   p r i v a t e   p a r t i c i p a n t s   i n   g e n e r a l ,   S M E s   a r e   n o t   a l w a y s 
prepared to subscribe to long-term contractual commitments for fear 
of losing flexibility to react to changing needs.

Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives?

 
 
 
 
24

F I G U R E   6

E V O LU T I O N   O F   F P   PA R T I C I PAT I O N   ( T H E M AT I C   P R I O R I T I E S )

BREAKDOWN OF FP6 PARTICIPANTS BY PROJECT INVOLVEMENT
(NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPATIONS)

57 %

53 %

37 %

28 %

13 %

8 %

2 %

1 %

FP5

FP6

FP5

FP6

FP5

FP6

FP5

FP6

Public

Private (non-SME)

Private (SME)

Undefined

BREAKDOWN OF FP6 PARTICIPANTS BY EC CONTRIBUTION RECEIVED

58 %

49 %

37 %

31 %

12 %

10 %

1 %

1 %

F  P5

FP6

FP5

FP6

FP5

FP6

FP5

FP6

Public

Private (non-SME)

Private (SME)

Undefined

Source: European Court of Auditors, based on Commission data.

Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives?

25

42.  Moreover, some FP6 provisions did discourage the participation of private 
companies. This was the case for the rule establishing consortia’s col-
lective technical and financial responsibility towards the Commission 
for the implementation of the project. This provision was applied to 
private organisations but not to the public ones, creating de facto an 
additional burden for this target group. Collective financial responsi-
bility has been removed under FP7 and replaced by a guarantee fund 
financed by part of the advances paid to programme participants.

43. 

44. 

FP6 also included the automatic access to the participants’ pre-existing 
k n o w l e d g e   r e q u i r e d   f o r   t h e   i m p l e m e n t a t i o n   o f   t h e   p r o j e c t ,   u n l e s s 
e x p l i c i t l y   a g r e e d   o t h e r w i s e .   T h i s   p r o v i s i o n   r e s u l t e d   i n   a   d i s i n c e n -
tive for private participation, in particular for SMEs which could not 
compete on equal terms against larger organisations. Under FP7 more 
freedom is given to consortia when defining access to existing know-
ledge in terms of Intellectual property rights.

THE COMMISSION’S MANAGEMENT 
OF NEW INSTRUMENTS

The Commission’s management has a decisive role in ensuring the success 
of FP6 activities, in particular by making it attractive to potential par-
ticipants and steering project progress. Manageable structures, clarity 
of  objectives,  rapid  and  straightforward  procedures,  and  adequate 
project monitoring are all determinants of the instruments’ effective-
ness. In this context, the Court analysed the implementation of eight 
calls for proposals and examined selected management process hav-
ing a key impact on the instruments’ performance (namely negotiation 
and  project  monitoring).  The  Court’s  audit  highlighted  a  number  of 
weaknesses.

Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives?

 
 
 
26

25  See also the Expert Group on the 

future of Networks of Excellence, 

op.cit, Section 3.3 (p. 18) and 

Annex 3 (p. 45).

45. 

46. 

UNCERTAINTIES ABOUT THE INSTRUMENTS SPECIFIC ROLE

As shown by Figure 7, a number of actors (mainly participants and to 
a  lesser  extent  also  coordinators)  reached  no  or  insufficient  under-
s t a n d i n g   a b o u t   t h e   s p e c i f i c   o b j e c t i v e s   t h a t   t h e   i n s t r u m e n t s   w e r e 
to  achieve  and  the  way  in  which  the  instruments  were  supposed  to 
work. In particular for NoEs, the survey results indicate that they were 
mainly  understood  as  a  networking  instrument,  while  the  objective 
was that of favouring lasting integration among networked partners. 
The start of FP6 was characterised by some confusion among poten-
tial  applicants,  particularly  concerning  NoEs.  And  further  problems 
w e r e   c a u s e d   b y   i n c o n s i s t e n t   c o m m u n i c a t i o n   f r o m   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n 
services 25.

Understanding of policy objectives is a key factor for effectiveness. The 
Commission  has  to  ensure  that  different  actors  are  clear  about  the 
g o a l s   t o   b e   p u r s u e d .   I n   t h i s   r e s p e c t   t h e   r o l e   o f   t h e   c o o r d i n a t o r s 
should be highlighted, as they show a far better understanding than 
participants. This indicates a problem of communication within con-
sortia, probably aggravated by the high number of participants (see 
paragraph 51).

F I G U R E   7

AC TO R S’  U N D E R S TA N D I N G   A B O U T  T H E   AU D I T E D   I N S T R U M E N T S’  R O L E

Do you feel you properly understood the diff  erences between the main collaborative instruments (NoE and IP) 
when you selected which one to use for the proposal?

NoE

IP

Succesful applicants

Coordinators

Participants

Coordinators

Participants

Yes, defi nitely

Yes, somewhat

No, somewhat not

No, defi nitely not

86 %

11 %

0 %

3 %

53 %

33 %

8 %

6 %

84 %

13 %

3 %

0 %

62 %

25 %

12 %

2 %

Unsuccesful applicants

Coordinators

Participants

Coordinators

Participants

Yes, defi nitely

Yes, somewhat

No, somewhat not

No, defi nitely not

75 %

0 %

25 %

0 %

67 %

33 %

0 %

0 %

60 %

20 %

20 %

0 %

58 %

27 %

13 %

2 %

Source: Survey conducted by the European Court of Auditors.

Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives?

 
 
27

47. 

48. 

49. 

50. 

MULTIPLE LEGAL PROVISIONS 
AND NOT ALWAYS SUFFICIENT GUIDANCE

The legal provisions governing the instruments were spread across a 
r a n g e   o f   l e g a l   t e x t s 2 6.   A t   d i f f e r e n t   s t a g e s   d e c i s i o n s   w e r e   t a k e n   b y 
the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament  to  set  up  the  instruments 
and their specific objectives (stating in which programme areas they 
might  be  applied),  or  by  the  Commission  concerning  the  provisions 
for implementing the instruments (specifying in particular the basic 
Community contribution mechanisms that were narrowly applicable 
to  each  instrument)  and  finally  the  model  FP6  contract  (specifying 
p r o v i s i o n s   f o r   p r o g r a m m e   p a r t i c i p a n t s   i m p l e m e n t i n g   i n d i r e c t   R T D 
actions in the form of specific instruments). The different applicable 
provisions were not always consistent.

Guidance was not complete when the first FP6 calls for proposals were 
l a u n c h e d   i n   D e c e m b e r   2 0 0 2 .   T h e   d e l a y s   a f f e c t i n g   t h e   p r e p a r a t i o n 
and publication of guidelines were traceable, ultimately, to the late 
adoption of model contracts.

In response to the publication of the 2004 evaluation 27, the Commission 
took  corrective  action  aimed  at  differentiating  between  the  instru-
ments.  This  resulted  in  a  better  understanding  of  the  nature  of  the 
i n s t r u m e n t s ,   b u t   a r e a s   o f   m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g   p e r s i s t e d .   A s   a   r e s u l t , 
further guidance was provided on several aspects of FP6 project man-
agement not addressed by the initial programme guides 28.

THE NEGOTIATION PROCESS: MORE LENGTHY 
AND OFTEN NOT TRANSPARENT

Average time-to-contract 29 was about 13 months, to be compared with 
a  duration  of  nine  months  for  FP5  calls 30.  As  a  result,  consortia  had 
no choice but to start projects before the contract had been signed. 
T h i s   e n t a i l e d   a   l e g a l   a n d   f i n a n c i a l   r i s k   f o r   t h e   b e n e f i c i a r i e s ,   w h i c h 
is  at  odds  with  the  objective  of  encouraging  research  activities.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  project  scope  (composition  of  the  consortium, 
duration, work programme) was modified in several cases (11 out of 
14  projects  audited)  at  the  initiative  of  the  Commission  during  the 
negotiation  process,  without  explicit  reference  to  the  objectives  of 
the programme.

26  See for example Annex III to 

Decision No 1513/2002/EC, Annex 

III to Council Decision 2002/834/EC 

(OJ L 294, 29.10.2002, p. 1) and 

Regulation (EC) No 2321/2002 

of the European Parliament 

and of the Council 

(OJ L 355, 30.12.2002, p. 23).

27  See Evaluation of the 

effectiveness of the New 

Instruments of Framework 

Programme VI, op. cit.

28  For example, the guide on 

competitive calls for NoEs and IPs 

appeared in November 2004. The 

guide on Intellectual Property 

rights appeared in March 2004.

29  Time to contract is defined 

as the time elapsed between a 

call closing date and a contract 

signature.

30  See page 60 of Special Report 

No 1/2004 on the management 

of ‘indirect’ RTD actions under 

the fifth framework programme 

(OJ C 99, 23.4.2004).

Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives?

 
 
 
 
28

FEWER AND LARGER PROJECTS BUT STILL 
A LARGE NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS

51. 

52. 

Although there is not a ‘once size fits all’ number of participants, it is 
clear that the larger the number of participants, the more difficult the 
project is to manage (organisational constraints, costs). Compared to 
FP5, fewer contracts were signed under FP6 and they involved larger 
consortia. However, on average, the number of participants per con-
tract is higher in FP6 (NoEs involved on average 30 participants and 
IPs  around  25  partners).  Under  FP7  the  number  of  participants  has 
been  reduced  (both  NoEs  and  IP-like  collaborative  projects  involve 
on average slightly less than 20 partners).

WEAKNESSES IN PROJECT MONITORING

All indirect RTD actions implemented under FP6 were subject to periodic 
technical monitoring by the Commission. For Networks of Excellence 
and  Integrated  Projects,  technical  monitoring  should  be  supported 
by project reviews carried out by independent experts (see footnote 
11). In particular, the Court found that two Commission departments 
had failed to fully comply with the legal requirement to have annual 
project reviews performed by independent experts.

53.  Where the Commission’s departments did meet this requirement, har-
monisation of project reviews was insufficient to allow the effective 
use of review results as a performance indicator, at both project and 
programme levels.

Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives?

 
 
 
29

54. 

55. 

56. 

STIMULATION OF RTD INVESTMENT

The total value of RTD investment carried out under FP6 thematic priori-
ties amounted to 19 billion euro. The EU budget funded 63 % of this 
i n v e s t m e n t .   T h e   p r i v a t e   s e c t o r   ( i n c l u d i n g   S M E s )   c o n t r i b u t e d   u p   t o 
22 %. The remaining 15 % was funded by national public sources 31.

31  The only data available for 

analysis correspond to the 

contractually agreed estimated 

eligible costs and the related 

MORE EU FUNDS FOR RELATIVELY 
LESS PARTICIPANTS’ RTD INVESTMENT

The comparison of FP6 (thematic priorities) with its predecessor (FP5 
thematic programmes 32) shows that total investment and EU contribu-
tion have increased in absolute terms (by 8 % and 15 %, respectively). 
However,  the  ratio  ‘Total  investment/EU  contribution’  has  declined 
from  1,69  euro  (FP5)  to  1,59  euro  (FP6).  The  main  reason  is  that  the 
participation of the private sector in general has declined when com-
pared to FP5 (see Figure 6).

The Court’s audit highlighted a risk of ‘low-profile’ commitment of public 
bodies participating in the programme. Cases were found (12 out of 
14 projects assessed) where the volume of own resources was much 
lower (between 30 % and 80 % less) than the costs actually reimbursed 
by the Commission 33. In such cases, the stimulation of investment is 
reduced, with the possibility that EU funds simply substitute partici-
pants’ own resources.

Community contribution. The lack 

of more detailed information, in 

particular the total investment 

actually carried out as a result 

of the participation in the 

programme, makes impossible any 

further analysis.

32  FP5 thematic programmes are 

the predecessors of FP6 thematic 

priorities. They were four: ‘Quality 

of Life and Management of 

Living Resources’, ‘User-friendly 

Information Society’, ‘Competitive 

and Sustainable Growth’ and 

‘Energy, Environment and 

Sustainable Development’.

33  According to the model applied 

by a significant number of public 

bodies (mainly universities), 

participants should allocate 

a volume of own resources 

equivalent to those funded by 

the Community. In this way the 

principle of co-financing would be 

satisfied. However, this condition 

was not adequately monitored by 

the Commission.

Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives?

 
 
 
CONCLUSIONS AND 
RECOMMENDATIONS

30

57. 

The Court recalls the lack in FP 6 of an explicit intervention logic, explain-
ing  how  the  different  instruments  and  programmes  were  supposed 
to  strengthen  the  scientific  and  technological  bases  of  Community 
industry  and  to  encourage  it  to  become  more  competitive  at  inter-
national  level 34.  The  absence  of  SMART  objectives  and  performance 
indicators  limits  significantly  the  assessment  of  the  contribution  of 
specific instruments and activities to the RTD objectives, thus under-
m i n i n g   t h e   b a s i s   f o r   s o u n d   m o n i t o r i n g   a n d   e v a l u a t i o n   ( s e e   p a r a -
graphs 19 and 20).

34  See paragraphs 22 to 37 of 

Special Report No 9/2007.

R E C O M M E N D AT I O N   N O   1
D E V E L O P   A N   E X P L I C I T   I N T E R V E N T I O N   L O G I C

T h e   C o u r t   r e c a l l s   i t s   p r e v i o u s   r e c o m m e n d a t i o n   t h a t   s p e n d i n g 
programmes should be based upon an explicit intervention logic, 
linking the instruments to realistic objectives. In this context, the 
p o s s i b i l i t y   o f   s e t t i n g   o n e   s i n g l e   o b j e c t i v e   f o r   e a c h   i n s t r u m e n t 
should be considered in order to ensure clarity of the instruments’ 
s p e c i f i c   r o l e .   F o r   e a c h   p r o g r a m m e   t h e r e   s h o u l d   b e   a p p r o p r i a t e 
performance indicators to monitor the expected outputs, outcomes 
and impacts.

58. 

59. 

The Court found that the FP6 instruments audited had promoted effective 
research collaboration between project participants. However, while 
all projects were qualified as ‘excellent’ at the time of their selection 
by  the  Commission,  not  more  than  one  third  of  them  kept  a  rating 
between ‘good to excellent’ after implementation (see paragraphs 22 
to 27).

The assessment of NoEs’ and IPs’ specific objectives highlights a con-
trasting picture. Notwithstanding their success in promoting research 
collaboration  and  projects  of  reasonable  quality,  none  of  the  NoEs 
audited achieved the specific objective of lasting integration among 
networked partners, thus making future collaboration subject to con-
tinued public support. Among the difficulties there was the reluctance 
o f   m a n y   o r g a n i s a t i o n s   t o   e n g a g e   i n   a   l o n g - t e r m   c o m m i t m e n t ,   b u t 
also the fact that the maximal duration of five years proved not to be 
realistic,  particularly  in  areas  where  lasting  integration  can  only  be 
achieved progressively. This raises the question as to the conditions 
u n d e r   w h i c h   i t   i s   j u s t i f i e d   t o   c o n t i n u e   t h e i r   f i n a n c i n g   b e y o n d   t h e 
initial  duration,  under  the  ongoing  Seventh  Framework  Programme 
(FP7) (see paragraphs 29 to 35).

Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives?

 
 
 
31

60. 

IPs have, in general, achieved the objectives pursued in their research 
field.  Thanks  to  a  longer  duration  and  an  increased  number  of  par-
t i c i p a n t s ,   t h e y   h a v e   m o b i l i s e d   a   s i g n i f i c a n t   v o l u m e   o f   r e s o u r c e s . 
However, IPs have not succeeded in attracting additional public and 
private funding. (see paragraphs 36 to 38).

R E C O M M E N D AT I O N   N O   2
A S S E S S   T H E   P E R F O R M A N C E   O F   N E W   I N S T R U M E N T S   C O M P A R E D 
T O   T R A D I T I O N A L   R E S E A R C H   C O L L A B O R AT I O N

The Commission should consider whether NoEs and IP-like collabo-
rative projects, which continue to receive funding under the current 
Framework Programme (FP7), have been given realistic objectives 
and  provide  significant  advantages  as  compared  with  traditional 
instruments for research collaboration. Concerning NoEs financed 
under FP6, the Commission should assess on a case-by-case basis 
w h e t h e r   p a s t   a c h i e v e m e n t s ,   p o t e n t i a l   E U   a d d e d   v a l u e   a n d   p r o s -
pects of self-sustainability justify further funding under FP7.

61.  Overall, when compared to FP5, EU funds have increased in FP6 but the 
investment realised is proportionally less important. The main reason 
is that the participation of the private sector in general has declined 
(see paragraph 55). The Court’s audit revealed cases where EU funds 
were far higher than the own resources committed by public bodies 
p a r t i c i p a t i n g   i n   t h e   p r o g r a m m e ,   w i t h   t h e   p o s s i b i l i t y   t h a t   E U   f u n d s 
simply substitute participants’ own resources (see paragraph 56).

62. 

FP6 sought to take SMEs particular needs into account and set for this 
purpose a target of at least 15 % of the total budget of the thematic 
priorities (like in the current FP7). Although, when compared to FP5, 
more SMEs were involved in RTD projects, the Community contribu-
tion allocated to SMEs in the thematic priorities was limited to 10 % 
( a g a i n s t   1 2   %   i n   F P 5 ) .   F P 7   f i r s t   r e s u l t s   s h o w   a   f u r t h e r   d e c l i n e   ( s e e 
paragraphs 39 to 40).

Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives?

 
 
 
32

63. 

The Court observes that FP6 has not stimulated a significant increase 
i n   t e r m s   o f   p a r t i c i p a n t s ’   R T D   i n v e s t m e n t ,   i n   a   c o n t e x t   w h e r e   t h e 
European Council has set the objective of reaching RTD investments 
in the EU equivalent to 3 % of gross domestic product, two thirds of 
which should come from the private sector.

R E C O M M E N D AT I O N   N O   3
E X A M I N E   T H E   R E A S O N S   F O R   A   L O W   I N V E S T M E N T   L E V E L

The Commission should examine the various reasons (specific to the 
Framework Programme or external to it) underlying the relatively 
low  level  of  participants’  RTD  investment  compared  to  the  goals 
pursued  and  propose  specific  measures.  Appropriate  data  should 
be made available to monitor the catalytic effect of EU RTD funding 
on the investments undertaken. The realism of expected targets, in 
particular for SMEs and the private sector, should be reassessed.

64. 

65. 

The Commission’s management has a decisive role in ensuring success 
and making schemes attractive to potential participants. Manageable 
structures, clarity of objectives, rapid and straightforward procedures, 
and  project  monitoring  are  all  determinants  of  the  Framework  Pro-
gramme’s effectiveness.

The Court’s audit highlighted a number of issues which affected the 
effectiveness of the actions funded by FP6. These concern in particular 
the uncertainty about the instruments’ specific role, the multiplicity 
o f   l e g a l   p r o v i s i o n s   w i t h   g u i d a n c e   n o t   a l w a y s   s u f f i c i e n t ,   a   n e g o t i a -
tion process that is increasingly long and often not transparent, the 
rather large number of participants/grant and weaknesses in project 
monitoring (see paragraphs 44 to 53).

Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives?

 
 
 
33

R E C O M M E N D AT I O N   N O   4
I M P R O V E   M A N A G E M E N T   C O N D I T I O N S

In  view  of  improving  in  particular  the  manageability  of  projects, 
t h e i r   a d e q u a t e   i m p l e m e n t a t i o n   a n d   a p p r o p r i a t e   e v a l u a t i o n ,   t h e 
C o m m i s s i o n   s h o u l d   e n s u r e   c l e a r   a n d   t i m e l y   g u i d a n c e ,   s p e e d i e r 
grant awarding procedures and better project monitoring.

This report was adopted by the Court of Auditors in Luxembourg at its 
meeting of 4 June 2009.

For the Court of Auditors
For the Court of Auditors

Vítor Manuel da Silva Caldeira
President

Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives?

 
 
34

REPLY OF THE 
REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION
COMMISSION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

III.
The Commission welcomes the Court’s con-
clusion  on  the  success  achieved  by  the  FP6 
instruments audited.

(i)
The FPs have always been based on a sound 
i n t e r v e n t i o n   l o g i c   ( i n   F P 7   i t   i s   m a d e   m o r e 
e x p l i c i t ) .   I t   i s   c h a l l e n g i n g ,   i n   p a r t i c u l a r 
given  the  inherent  uncertainty  of  research 
results, to ensure all objectives fit precisely 
within  the  strict  definitions  of  ‘SMART’  cri-
t e r i a .   A n d   y e t ,   e s s e n t i a l   a s p e c t s   o f   t h e 
‘ S M A R T ’   r a t i o n a l e   w e r e   a c c o m m o d a t e d   i n 
a l l   r e s e a r c h - r e l a t e d   l e g i s l a t i v e   a n d   i m p l e -
mentation  acts  as  can  be  evidenced  e.g.  by 
the existence of ‘objectives’ in the FP6 the-
m a t i c   p r i o r i t i e s ,   d e s p i t e   t h e   f a c t   t h a t   t h i s 
a p p r o a c h   w a s   n o t   e x p l i c i t   i n   t h e   F i n a n c i a l 
Regulation applicable at the moment of the 
FP6 preparation and adoption. Under FP7, all 
work programmes contain expected impact 
s t a t e m e n t s ,   w h i c h   c o r r e s p o n d   w i t h   t h e 
o b j e c t i v e s ,   r a t i o n a l e   a n d   a c t i v i t i e s   s e t   o u t 
in the Specific Programmes.

(ii)
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   b e l i e v e s   t h a t   s o m e   ‘ N e t -
w o r k s   o f   E x c e l l e n c e ’   h a v e   b e e n   l e s s   s u c -
cessful than others but several NoEs reached 
s e l f - s u s t a i n e d   i n t e g r a t i o n .   T h i s   i s   n o r m a l 
given  the  wide  range  of  areas  covered,  the 
v a r i o u s   p a r t i c i p a n t s   i n   d o z e n s   o f   d i f f e r e n t 
p r o j e c t s   a n d   t h e   r e a l i t i e s   o f   c o l l a b o r a t i o n 
in consortia.

O n   t h e i r   s i d e ,   t h e   I P s   w e r e ,   b y   c o m m o n 
admission, quite successful, for example, in 
the  areas  of  energy  and  transport  industri-
a l l y   l e d   d e m o n s t r a t i o n   I P s .   M a n y   p r o j e c t s 
h a v e   l e d   t o   m a r k e t   d e p l o y m e n t   a n d   r e p l i -
c a t i o n   a f t e r   t h e   s u c c e s s f u l   e n d   o f   t h e   F P 6 
contracts.

Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives?

35

REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION

IV.
The FPs have always been based on a sound 
intervention logic which has allowed effec-
tive  evaluation  and  monitoring.  In  FP7,  the 
i n t e r v e n t i o n   l o g i c   i s   m a d e   m o r e   e x p l i c i t , 
t o g e t h e r   w i t h   t h e   o b j e c t i v e s   a n d   p e r -
f o r m a n c e   m e a s u r e s   t h a t   w i l l   h e l p   f u r t h e r 
s t r e n g t h e n   t h e   e v a l u a t i o n   a n d   m o n i t o r i n g 
system. In FP7, research goals and research 
p o l i c y   o b j e c t i v e s   a r e   c l e a r l y   a n d   e x p l i c i t l y 
set in the work programmes. For each topic, 
the  scientific  goals,  the  scope  of  activities 
and indications on the results expected are 
defined.

V.
(i)
The Commission has evaluated IPs and NoEs 
t h r o u g h   v a r i o u s   s t u d i e s   a n d   r e p o r t s .   W i t h 
regard  to  a  continued  funding  of  FP6  NoEs 
under FP7, the Commission reached a similar 
conclusion to the Court.

(ii)
The Commission is constantly examining the 
r e s e a r c h   l a n d s c a p e ,   m o n i t o r s   t h e   n a t i o n a l 
R   &   D   p o l i c i e s   a n d   i s   a c t i v e l y   e n g a g e d   i n 
endeavours to further research investments 
t h r o u g h ,   n o t   l e a s t ,   t h e   o p e n   m e t h o d   o f 
coordination.

(iii)
The Commission agrees that clear and timely 
g u i d a n c e ,   a   s p e e d i e r   c o n t r a c t i n g   p r o c -
ess  and  better  project  monitoring  are  very 
i m p o r t a n t .   T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   c a r r i e s   o u t   i t s 
o b l i g a t i o n s   w h i l e   i t   c o n s t a n t l y   h a s   t o   b a l -
a n c e   b e t w e e n   t w o   g o a l s   t h a t   a r e   d i f f i c u l t 
to  reconcile,  namely  the  speediness  of  dis-
bursement of funds and the need to ensure 
t h e i r   a c c o u n t a b l e   d i s t r i b u t i o n   t o   c o n t r a c -
tors,  all  in  the  context  of  the  given  legisla-
tive environment.

(iii)
The Commission considers that its manage-
m e n t   o f   t h e   F P 6   i n s t r u m e n t s   h a s   p l a y e d 
a n   i m p o r t a n t   r o l e   i n   e n s u r i n g   t h e   s u c c e s s 
a c h i e v e d   b y   t h e s e   i n s t r u m e n t s .   T h e   C o m -
mission  has  actively  sought  to  address  any 
p r o b l e m s   e n c o u n t e r e d ,   w i t h i n   t h e   c o n -
straints  imposed  by  the  existing  legislative 
framework. Draft guidance documents were 
actually available even before the launch of 
FP6.

(iv)
FP6 alone (with its two new instruments, the 
IPs and NoEs) is not the panacea for the chal-
l e n g e s   f a c i n g   t h e   E u r o p e a n   r e s e a r c h   l a n d -
scape,  especially  since  it  made  up  only  5  % 
of the overall European funding for research. 
Moreover,  at  a  moment  when  thousands  of 
projects financed by it continue their course, 
it  is  too  early  to  make  conclusive  compari-
s o n s   w i t h   F P 5 .   F u r t h e r ,   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n 
b e l i e v e s   t h a t   F P 6   h a s   p r o v i d e d   a   s i g n i f i -
cant  boost  to  research  efforts  and  that  the 
achievements of FP6 have been substantial. 
The  Commission  acknowledges  the  Court’s 
findings as regards the participation of the 
p r i v a t e   s e c t o r   a n d   w o u l d   l i k e   t o   a d d   t h a t 
when taking into account public and private 
organisations engaged in commercial activi-
ties (the business enterprise sector) partici-
pation rates are similar to those of FP5.

The  Commission  agrees  about  the  difficul-
ties  related  to  the  SME  participation  under 
F P 6 .   T h e s e   i s s u e s   h a v e   b e e n   a d d r e s s e d   i n 
FP7.

Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives?

36

REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION

24.
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   c o n s i d e r s   t h a t   t h e   h i g h 
overall satisfaction with the two instruments 
(NoEs and IPs) expressed by the participants 
in the Court’s survey is very positive. Given 
t h e   d i f f e r e n t   s c o p e   a n d   p r o f i l e   o f   t h e   t w o 
instruments,  it  is  normal  that  private  part-
ners found in particular IPs more suitable to 
fit their needs.

27.
A s   p r o p o s a l s   c o r r e s p o n d   t o   ‘ e x p e c t a t i o n s ’ 
a n d   p r o j e c t s   t o   r e a l i t y ,   a n d   a s   t h e   i m p l e -
m e n t a t i o n   o f   p r o j e c t s   c a n   r e s u l t   i n   u n e x -
pected  difficulties,  it  is  not  surprising  that 
t h e   e v a l u a t i o n   o f   s o m e   p r o j e c t s   c o u l d   b e 
less positive than the evaluation of the pro-
posals they stemmed from.

30.
The Commission notes that, according to Fig-
ure 5, the overall assessment of the projects’ 
q u a l i t y   s h o w e d   t h e m   t o   b e   ‘ a c c e p t a b l e ’ 
a n d   ‘ g o o d   t o   e x c e l l e n t ’   w i t h   a   p e r c e n t a g e 
of above 80 %, which suggests that partici-
p a n t s   a d e q u a t e l y   a l l o c a t e d   t h e i r   r e s e a r c h 
capacities  to  the  network.  One  of  the  most 
important aspects of these new instruments, 
repeatedly brought forward in various guid-
ance  documents,  was  the  enhanced  role  of 
the consortia themselves (and, in particular, 
of the coordinators) concerning the internal 
management of the project. It could be too 
soon to reach a definitive conclusion on how 
a n d / o r   i f   t h e   o b j e c t i v e   o f   ‘ s e l f - s u s t a i n a b l e 
l o n g - t e r m   r e s e a r c h   a c t i v i t i e s   a n d   p a r t n e r -
ships’ has been reached.

INTRODUCTION

10.
FP6  was  meant  to  encourage  the  participa-
tion of SMEs in all areas and all instruments, 
in particular in the context of the activities 
carried out in the priority thematic areas.

16.
A lower success rate for proposals under FP6 
t h a n   u n d e r   F P 5   i s   a t t r i b u t e d   t o   t h e   h i g h e r 
subscription  rates  under  FP6.  Subscription 
rates  depend  on  a  number  of  complex  fac-
t o r s ,   a m o n g   o t h e r s   t h e   d e g r e e   o f   d e t a i l   o f 
the  calls  for  proposals,  the  funds  available 
and the evaluation approach.

AUDIT OBSERVATIONS

20.–21.
I n   i t s   r e s p o n s e   t o   a   p r e v i o u s   a u d i t   o f   t h e 
C o u r t 1,   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   m a i n t a i n e d   t h a t 
the FPs have always been based on a sound 
i n t e r v e n t i o n   l o g i c ,   w h i c h   h a s   b e e n   a r t i c u -
l a t e d   a s   p e r   t h e   T r e a t y ’ s   p r o v i s i o n s   i n   t h e 
various legislative and implementation acts. 
In FP7 this is made more explicit, which will 
further strengthen the Commission’s moni-
t o r i n g   a n d   e v a l u a t i o n .   I t   i s   c h a l l e n g i n g ,   i n 
p a r t i c u l a r   g i v e n   t h e   i n h e r e n t   u n c e r t a i n t y 
of  research  results,  to  ensure  all  objectives 
fit  precisely  within  the  strict  definitions  of 
‘ S M A R T ’   c r i t e r i a .   D e s p i t e   t h e   f a c t   t h a t   t h i s 
a p p r o a c h   w a s   n o t   e x p l i c i t   i n   t h e   F i n a n c i a l 
R e g u l a t i o n   a p p l i c a b l e   a t   t h e   m o m e n t   o f 
t h e   F P 6   p r e p a r a t i o n   a n d   a d o p t i o n ,   e s s e n -
t i a l   e l e m e n t s   o f   t h e   ‘ S M A R T ’   a p p r o a c h 
were nevertheless taken up in the Commis-
s i o n ’ s   w o r k   p r o g r a m m e s   u n d e r   F P 6 .   U n d e r 
F P 7 ,   w h i c h   w a s   d e v e l o p e d   o n   t h e   b a s i s   o f 
a   d e t a i l e d   e x   a n t e   i m p a c t   a s s e s s m e n t ,   a l l 
work programmes contain expected impact 
s t a t e m e n t s ,   w h i c h   c o r r e s p o n d   w i t h   t h e 
o b j e c t i v e s ,   r a t i o n a l e   a n d   a c t i v i t i e s   s e t   o u t 
in the Specific Programmes.

1  See the Commission’s replies to Special Report No 9/2007.

Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives?

37

REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION

40.
Concerning FP7, it is still too early in the course 
of this seven-year long FP to suggest any final 
judgment on the SMEs’ participation.

41.–43.
The  Commission  agrees  about  the  difficul-
ties  related  to  the  SME  participation  under 
F P 6 .   T h e s e   i s s u e s   h a v e   b e e n   a d d r e s s e d 
i n   F P 7 .   I n   a d d i t i o n ,   o n   t o p   o f   t h e   f u n d i n g 
provided  following  calls  for  proposals,  FP7 
supports the Eurostars Joint Programme for 
SMEs  based  on  Article  169  of  the  Treaty  by 
u p   t o   1 0 0   m i l l i o n   e u r o .   T h e   p r o g r a m m e   i s 
jointly undertaken by Eureka countries, sup-
porting transnational projects initiated and 
led  by  R  &  D  performing  SMEs.  Eurostars  is 
expected to contribute to building the Euro-
pean  Research  Area  by  integrating  the  par-
ticipating national programmes into a joint 
programme at European level.

44.
The  Commission  considers  that  the  Court’s 
conclusion that the FP6 instruments audited 
had promoted effective research collabora-
tion between project participants (see para-
graph 58) reflects well on the Commission’s 
o v e r a l l   m a n a g e m e n t   o f   t h e s e   i n s t r u m e n t s . 
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   h a s   a c t i v e l y   s o u g h t   t o 
address  any  problems  encountered,  within 
the constraints imposed by the existing leg-
islative  framework,  and  continues  to  do  so 
under FP7.

The Commission notes that the behaviour of 
the NoEs has been variable across the Frame-
w o r k   P r o g r a m m e .   I n   s o m e   t h e m a t i c   p r i o r i -
ties such as IST and NMP, NoEs tend to reach 
greater degrees of sustainable development 
than in others 2.

31.
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   n o t e s   t h e   C o u r t ’ s   o w n 
s t a t e m e n t   t h a t   a l m o s t   t w o   t h i r d s   o f   N o E s 
achieved full restructuring of activities and 
i n t e g r a t i o n   b e t w e e n   p a r t n e r s ,   w h i c h   i s   a 
considerable proportion.

33.
C e r t a i n   c i r c u m s t a n c e s   m a y   h a v e   h i n d e r e d 
p a r t i c i p a n t s   f r o m   w o r k i n g   t o g e t h e r   m o r e 
e f f e c t i v e l y .   T h i s   i s   a   n o r m a l   t r a i t ,   i n e x t r i -
cably  linked  to  the  nature  of  collaboration 
between various actors with complementary 
yet different individual research goals.

35.
T h e   p o s s i b i l i t y   o f   c o n t i n u i n g   t h e   f i n a n c -
ing  of  certain  promising  NoEs  under  FP7  is 
addressed on a case-by-case basis. In fact, an 
FP6 NoE’s duration may be prolonged under 
FP7 to achieve its objectives but without new 
funding (cases of these currently exist).

38.
A   d i s t i n c t i o n   h a s   t o   b e   m a d e   b e t w e e n   t h e 
possible dimension of financial integration, 
in the sense of the guidelines issued by the 
C o m m i s s i o n   f o r   I P s ,   a n d   t h e   c o - f i n a n c i n g 
principle  governing  any  FP6  project.  There 
has been no requirement on IP participants 
to  attract  other  sources  of  funding  beyond 
their  own  co-financing  share.  The  Commis-
sion notes variable behaviour across the the-
matic areas of the Framework Programme in 
t e r m s   o f   a t t r a c t i n g   a d d i t i o n a l   p r i v a t e   a n d 
public funding.

2 

IST and NMP refer to the FP6 thematic priorities ‘Informa-

tion society technologies’ and ‘Nanotechnologies and nano-

sciences,  knowledge-based  multifunctional  materials,  and 

new production processes and devices’.

Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives?

38

REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION

45.
The Commission provided guidance material 
to  the  actors  involved  in  order  to  facilitate 
their understanding of the new instruments. 
A very high percentage of coordinators and 
p a r t i c i p a n t s   i n   t h e   s u r v e y   a p p a r e n t l y   d i d 
understand the distinction between the two 
instruments  (see  the  Court’s  Figure  7).  It  is 
also to be expected that coordinators would 
have  a  better  understanding  of  these  than 
o t h e r   p a r t i c i p a n t s .   T h e   E u r o p e a n   r e s e a r c h 
c o m m u n i t y   b y   a n d   l a r g e   u n d e r s t o o d   a n d 
used well the new instruments, as evidenced 
by Figure 7 itself.

46.
One of the most important aspects of these 
n e w   i n s t r u m e n t s ,   r e p e a t e d l y   b r o u g h t   f o r -
w a r d   i n   v a r i o u s   g u i d a n c e   d o c u m e n t s ,   w a s 
t h e   e n h a n c e d   r o l e   o f   t h e   c o n s o r t i a   t h e m -
s e l v e s   ( a n d ,   i n   p a r t i c u l a r ,   o f   t h e   c o o r d i n a -
t o r s )   c o n c e r n i n g   t h e   i n t e r n a l   m a n a g e m e n t 
of the project.

47.
The Commission implemented the FP in the 
best possible manner to ensure compliance 
with the different applicable provisions.

48.
The Commission has acted as quickly as pos-
sible given the late adoption of the FP6 legal 
a c t s   b y   t h e   l e g i s l a t o r s .   D e t a i l e d   b r o c h u r e s 
a n d   ‘ P r o v i s i o n s   f o r   i m p l e m e n t i n g ’   f o r   a l l 
t h e   i n s t r u m e n t s   w e r e   a l r e a d y   a v a i l a b l e   i n 
November 2002, well before the production 
o f   t h e   m o d e l   c o n t r a c t s .   A   l a r g e   n u m b e r   o f 
g u i d a n c e   d o c u m e n t s   h a v e   b e e n   p r o d u c e d 
and published on the internet. Additionally, 
targeted  events  for  coordinators,  to  which 
all projects have been invited, addressed in 
p a r t i c u l a r   a n y   q u e s t i o n s   t h e y   m i g h t   h a v e 
had on the specificities of the instruments.

49.
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   i s   p l e a s e d   t h a t   t h e   C o u r t 
appreciates its continuous efforts to promote 
better understanding of the new instruments 
u n d e r   F P 6 ,   i n c l u d i n g   i t s   q u i c k   r e s p o n s e   t o 
external evaluations. The European research 
c o m m u n i t y   b y   a n d   l a r g e   u n d e r s t o o d   a n d 
used the new instruments well.

50.
T h e   i n t r o d u c t i o n   o f   n e w   i n s t r u m e n t s   u n a -
voidably brought the need for proposers to 
become  familiar  with  new  notions  in  terms 
o f   t h e   n e g o t i a t i o n s   t o   b e   c a r r i e d   o u t   a n d 
t h e   d a t a   t o   b e   s u b m i t t e d ,   e l e m e n t s   t h a t 
very often made necessary further contacts 
and exchanges between participants them-
selves,  an  always  time-consuming  process. 
Further, the obligation imposed on the Com-
mission by the legislator (the Council, in this 
c a s e )   t o   r e c e i v e   a   ( p o s i t i v e )   o p i n i o n   o n   a l l 
I P s   a n d   N o E s   t o   b e   f u n d e d   ( i r r e s p e c t i v e   o f 
t h e   a m o u n t   o f   C o m m u n i t y   c o n t r i b u t i o n ) 
contributed to making the time-to-contract 
l o n g e r .   M o r e o v e r ,   t h e   t i m e   i s   c o m p a r a b l e 
to  that  of  other  major  funding  agencies  in 
the world. As regards the negotiation proc-
ess, modifications on the project scope were 
always done in the context of the FP’s legal 
framework.

51.
The  Commission  acknowledges  the  Court’s 
comments. However, the Commission recalls 
t h a t   o n e   o f   t h e   m o s t   i m p o r t a n t   a s p e c t s   o f 
these new instruments, repeatedly brought 
forward in various guidance documents, was 
t h e   e n h a n c e d   r o l e   o f   t h e   c o n s o r t i a   t h e m -
s e l v e s   ( a n d ,   i n   p a r t i c u l a r ,   o f   t h e   c o o r d i n a -
t o r s )   c o n c e r n i n g   t h e   i n t e r n a l   m a n a g e m e n t 
of the project.

Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives?

39

REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION

CONCLUSIONS AND 
RECOMMENDATIONS

57.
The Commission considers that the FPs have 
always been based on a sound intervention 
logic. Under FP6, the legislative acts and the 
Commission’s  work  programmes  and  infor-
m a t i o n   m a t e r i a l   o f   v a r i o u s   t y p e s   p r o v i d e d 
a   c o h e r e n t   s t r e a m   a n d   w e a l t h   o f   i n f o r m a -
t i o n   o n   i n t e r v e n t i o n   l o g i c ,   o b j e c t i v e s ,   j u s -
tification  of  the  efforts  and  their  European 
a d d e d   v a l u e ,   a c t i o n s   e n v i s a g e d ,   r a t i o n a l e 
a n d   o p e r a t i o n a l   f r a m e w o r k   o f   a p p l i c a t i o n 
f o r   a l l   i n s t r u m e n t s   t o   b e   u s e d   a n d   o t h e r 
h e l p f u l   i n f o r m a t i o n   f o r   t h e   p r o p o s e r s   a n d 
p r o j e c t   p a r t i c i p a n t s .   I t   i s   c h a l l e n g i n g ,   i n 
p a r t i c u l a r   g i v e n   t h e   i n h e r e n t   u n c e r t a i n t y 
of  research  results,  to  ensure  all  objectives 
fit  precisely  within  the  strict  definitions  of 
‘ S M A R T ’   c r i t e r i a .   D e s p i t e   t h e   f a c t   t h a t   t h i s 
a p p r o a c h   w a s   n o t   e x p l i c i t   i n   t h e   F i n a n c i a l 
R e g u l a t i o n   a p p l i c a b l e   a t   t h e   m o m e n t   o f 
t h e   F P 6   p r e p a r a t i o n   a n d   a d o p t i o n ,   e s s e n -
tial elements of the ‘SMART’ approach were 
nevertheless  taken  up  in  the  Commission’s 
work programmes under FP6. Under FP7, all 
work programmes contain expected impact 
s t a t e m e n t s ,   w h i c h   c o r r e s p o n d   w i t h   t h e 
o b j e c t i v e s ,   r a t i o n a l e   a n d   a c t i v i t i e s   s e t   o u t 
in the Specific Programmes. The Commission 
considers  that  FP6  was  properly  monitored 
and evaluated.

52.
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   s t r o n g l y   e n d o r s e s   t h e 
i m p o r t a n c e   o f   p r o j e c t   m o n i t o r i n g ,   c a r r i e d 
o u t   t h r o u g h   a   v a r i e t y   o f   m e a n s   i n c l u d i n g 
the detailed attention of project officers. It 
r e c o g n i s e s   h o w e v e r ,   t h a t   t h e r e   h a v e   b e e n 
some cases, often for individual and specific 
reasons, where independent review was not 
carried out.

53.
A common template for the reviewers’ report 
was  prepared  for  all  Research  DGs.  A  basic 
common  guidance  document  was  also  pre-
pared and given to the different services to 
adapt to their own needs.

55.
The  Commission  acknowledges  the  Court’s 
f i n d i n g s .   T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   w o u l d   l i k e   t o 
s t r e s s ,   h o w e v e r ,   t h a t   t h e   E U   c o n t r i b u t i o n 
t o   t h e   p r i v a t e   s e c t o r   u n d e r   F P 6   i n c r e a s e d 
significantly  by  more  than  1  billion  euro  in 
c o m p a r i s o n   t o   F P 5 .   I t   i s   a l s o   t r u e   t h a t   t h e 
situation differs by sectors. The Commission 
considers  that  FP6  had  a  positive  influence 
on industrial competitiveness. Furthermore, 
i t   w o u l d   l i k e   t o   a d d   t h a t   w h e n   t a k i n g   i n t o 
a c c o u n t   p u b l i c   a n d   p r i v a t e   o r g a n i s a t i o n s 
engaged in commercial activities (the busi-
n e s s   e n t e r p r i s e   s e c t o r )   p a r t i c i p a t i o n   r a t e s 
are similar to those of FP5.

Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives?

40

REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION

59.
T h e r e   w a s   a   l a r g e   n u m b e r   o f   N o E s   w h e r e 
l a s t i n g   i n t e g r a t i o n   a m o n g   p a r t n e r s   w a s 
achieved and the overall quality of projects 
w a s   d e e m e d   h i g h   ( t h e   o v e r a l l   a s s e s s m e n t 
i n   F i g u r e   5   s h o w s   t h e   N o E s ’   q u a l i t y   t o   b e 
‘acceptable’  and  ‘good  to  excellent’  with  a 
total percentage of above 80 %). Almost two 
thirds of NoEs achieved full restructuring of 
activities and integration between partners. 
The  possibility  of  continuing  the  financing 
of  certain  promising  FP6  NoEs  under  FP7  is 
addressed on a case-by-case basis. In fact, an 
FP6 NoE’s duration may be prolonged with-
o u t   n e w   f u n d i n g   ( c a s e s   o f   t h e s e   c u r r e n t l y 
exist).  Moreover,  new  NoEs  could  be  envis-
aged in duly justified cases.

60.
A   d i s t i n c t i o n   h a s   t o   b e   m a d e   b e t w e e n   t h e 
possible  dimension  of  financial  integration 
and the co-financing principle governing any 
FP6 project. There has been no requirement 
o n   I P   p a r t i c i p a n t s   t o   a t t r a c t   o t h e r   s o u r c e s 
o f   f u n d i n g   b e y o n d   t h e i r   o w n   c o - f i n a n c -
i n g   s h a r e .   T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   n o t e s   v a r i a b l e 
behaviour  across  the  thematic  areas  of  the 
Framework Programme in terms of attracting 
additional private and public funding.

Recommendation No 2
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   h a s   e v a l u a t e d   t h e s e   F P 6 
i n s t r u m e n t s   t h r o u g h   v a r i o u s   m e a n s .   W i t h 
regard to a continued funding of FP6 NoEs, 
the Commission reached a similar conclusion 
following the Report of the Expert Group on 
the future of Networks of Excellence.

Recommendation No 1
The Commission considers that the FPs have 
always been based on a sound intervention 
l o g i c   w h i c h   h a s   a l l o w e d   e f f e c t i v e   e v a l u a -
tion  and  monitoring.  Under  FP7,  which  was 
developed on the basis of a detailed ex ante 
i m p a c t   a s s e s s m e n t ,   a l l   w o r k   p r o g r a m m e s 
contain expected impact statements, which 
c o r r e s p o n d   w i t h   t h e   o b j e c t i v e s ,   r a t i o n a l e 
a n d   a c t i v i t i e s   s e t   o u t   i n   t h e   S p e c i f i c   P r o -
grammes.  This  will  help  further  strengthen 
the evaluation and monitoring system. Under 
F P 7 ,   i n s t e a d   o f   b e i n g   e n c a p s u l a t e d   i n   t h e 
‘ i n s t r u m e n t s ’ ,   r e s e a r c h   g o a l s   a n d   r e s e a r c h 
policy objectives, including those aiming at 
structuring research efforts, are clearly and 
explicitly  set  in  the  work  programmes.  For 
each  topic  on  which  proposals  are  invited, 
the  scientific  goals,  the  scope  of  activities 
and indications on the results expected are 
defined.

58.
The Commission welcomes the Court’s con-
c l u s i o n   t h a t   t h e   F P 6   i n s t r u m e n t s   c o v e r e d 
b y   t h e   a u d i t   h a d   p r o m o t e d   a   g o o d   l e v e l 
o f   r e s e a r c h   c o l l a b o r a t i o n   b e t w e e n   p r o j e c t 
p a r t i c i p a n t s .   A s   p r o p o s a l s   c o r r e s p o n d   t o 
‘expectations’ and projects to reality, and as 
the implementation of projects can result in 
unexpected  difficulties,  it  is  not  surprising 
that  the  evaluation  of  some  projects  could 
be  less  positive  than  the  evaluation  of  the 
proposals they stemmed from.

Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives?

41

REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION

65.
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   h a s   a c t i v e l y   s o u g h t   t o 
address  any  problems  encountered,  within 
the constraints imposed by the existing leg-
i s l a t i v e   f r a m e w o r k .   T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   n o t e s 
t h a t   t h e   l a r g e   n u m b e r   o f   p r o j e c t s   u n d e r 
t h e   n e w   i n s t r u m e n t s ,   w h i c h   p o i n t s   t o   t h e 
involvement of thousands of participants in 
them, as well as the overall good results that 
w e r e   r e g i s t e r e d   f o r   t h e m ,   s h o w s   t h a t   a n y 
shortcomings  have  not  been  important  for 
the overall use of the IPs and the NoEs.

Recommendation No 4
The Commission agrees that clear and timely 
g u i d a n c e ,   a   s p e e d i e r   c o n t r a c t i n g   p r o c -
ess  and  better  project  monitoring  are  very 
important elements for the implementation 
of a European FP for research. The Commis-
sion carries out its obligations while it con-
s t a n t l y   h a s   t o   b a l a n c e   b e t w e e n   t w o   g o a l s 
t h a t   a r e   d i f f i c u l t   t o   r e c o n c i l e ,   n a m e l y   t h e 
speediness of disbursement of funds and the 
need  to  ensure  their  accountable  distribu-
tion to contractors, all in the context of the 
current legislative environment.

61.
The  Commission  acknowledges  the  Court’s 
findings. Still, it points out that this did not 
diminish the FP’s role as a contributor to the 
promotion of industrial competitiveness.

Furthermore, it would like to add that when 
t a k i n g   i n t o   a c c o u n t   p u b l i c   a n d   p r i v a t e 
organisations engaged in commercial activi-
ties (the business enterprise sector) partici-
pation rates are similar to those of FP5.

62.
C o n c e r n i n g   F P 7 ,   i t   i s   s t i l l   t o o   e a r l y   i n   t h e 
c o u r s e   o f   t h i s   s e v e n - y e a r - l o n g   F P   t o   s u g -
g e s t   a n y   f i n a l   j u d g m e n t   o n   t h e   S M E s ’ 
participation.

63.
FP6 makes up a very small part (close to 5 %) 
of the overall funding provided for research 
i n   E u r o p e   a n d ,   h e n c e ,   i t s   s c o p e   f o r   i n f l u -
ence in a domain where Member States have 
t h e   f i r s t   r o l e   t o   p l a y   i s   b y   d e f i n i t i o n   l i m -
ited.  Yet  the  Commission  believes  that  FP6 
has provided a significant boost to research 
efforts.

Recommendation No 3
The Commission is constantly examining the 
r e s e a r c h   l a n d s c a p e ,   m o n i t o r s   t h e   n a t i o n a l 
R   &   D   p o l i c i e s   a n d   i s   a c t i v e l y   e n g a g e d   i n 
the  endeavours  to  further  research  invest-
ments through, not least, the open method 
of coordination.

Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives?

43

REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION

European Court of Auditors

Special Report No 8/2009

‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives?

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union

2009 — 41 pp. — 21 (cid:2) 29.7 cm

ISBN 978-92-9207-408-1

doi:10.2865/63596

Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives?

How to obtain EU publications

Publications for sale:

• 

• 

• 

 via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);

 from your bookseller by quoting the title, publisher and/or ISBN number;

 by contacting one of our sales agents directly. 
You can obtain their contact details on the Internet (http://bookshop.europa.eu) 
or by sending a fax to +352 2929-42758.

Free publications:

• 

• 

 via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);

 at the European Commission’s representations or delegations. 
You can obtain their contact details on the Internet (http://ec.europa.eu) 
or by sending a fax to +352 2929-42758.

Q
J
-
A
B
-
0
9
-
0
1
0
-
E
N

-
C

THE  SIXTH  FRAMEWORK  PROGRAMME WAS  SET  UP  BY THE  EU TO 

PROMOTE EUROPEAN RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT 

DURING THE  PERIOD  FROM  2002 TO  2006. THE  COURT  ANALYSED 

THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE T WO MAIN INSTRUMENTS, ‘NET WORKS 

OF  EXCELLENCE’  AND ‘INTEGRATED  PROJEC TS’,  HAD  EFFEC TIVELY 

CONTRIBUTED TO THE  ACHIEVEMENT  OF THE  OBJEC TIVES  OF THE 

PROGRAMME. THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT THESE INSTRUMENTS 

CONTRIBUTED TO THE GENERAL OBJECTIVE OF PROMOTING EFFECTIVE 

RESEARCH COLLABORATION BUT THEIR SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES WERE 

ONLY PARTIALLY ACHIEVED.

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS