The Belgians return from the summer keen to push forward work on simplification of EU research and innovation programmes. A Presidency text, to be discussed by delegations on 6 September, sets out a rather detailed list of to-dos for the European Commission. Notably, the Presidency wants the Commission to maintain different funding rates for different types of beneficiary. Also, the Presidency supports raising of the tolerable risk of error rate to 3.5%.

Under the Spanish EU Presidency, the Council itself issued, in May this year, a set of conclusions on simplified and more efficient research programmes, responding to the Commission’s own communication of 27 April. On 6 September, delegations, however, get the chance to improve the Belgian Presidency’s current text. The responsible minister, Benoît Cerexhe, aims to present “ambitious” conclusions at the Competitiveness Council, on 12 October.

The Belgians begin by stating the obvious: simplification of the research and innovation programmes is necessary given the current complexity of funding. As evidenced by various Commission reports, this causes excessive administrative burden and discourages potential beneficiaries. However, simplification must come about as the result of constructive dialogue between all stakeholders. Transition to simpler programmes should also be smooth, note the Belgians.

The Presidency is calling for very detailed action on the part of the Commission. EU officials should speed up their simplification process, developing trust in researchers and guaranteeing the stability of rules while avoiding further complexity. As regards the 7th Framework Programme (FP7), the Commission must finalise its research participant portal; introduce further transparency and traceability in the project cycle; and further reduce paperwork, for instance by reducing the amount of, and simplifying, documents.

Other items on the Belgians’ shopping list include the Commission ensuring access to public output of projects in a central repository; ensuring coherent interpretation and application of rules and regulations between project officers, auditors, different executive agencies, directorates-general (DGs) and units within the same DG.

INDEPENDENT MEDIATION MECHANISM

The Belgian Presidency is also calling for an independent mediation mechanism in the research framework programmes to settle disputes. As far as possible, the Commission should introduce more two-stage application procedures to prevent over-subscription and to increase success rate. Other ideas proffered are introducing more flexibility in the composition of FP consortia and reducing their size. There should be greater use of common rules and procedures between programmes and instruments, such as the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP), Structural Funds and Joint Technology Initiatives (JTIs).

The Belgians are also proposing that the Commission maintain different funding rates and indirect cost calculation models for the various types of beneficiaries, whether universities, research organisations, industry or SMEs. Lump-sum payments, as opposed to receipt-based financial justification, should be an option on a voluntary basis, if close to actual costs and in conformity with national accounting and auditing standards.

A document is available at www.europolitics.info > Search = 277780

MEPs’ amendments

The European Parliament’s Committee on Industry (ITRE) also discussed, on 2 September, a report by Maria Da Graca Carvalho (EPP, Portugal) on simplifying research programmes. Compromise amendments are now being drawn up and should be distributed before a shadow rapporteurs’ meeting at the forthcoming Strasbourg session. The rapporteur’s main ideas are in line with those of the Commission and Council. Points of difference include her support for a reduction of the number of applicable funding rates according to organisation type, albeit without opting for a uniform rate (see Europolitics 4026).