The Commission says it “broadly accepts” all the recommendations of the European Court of Auditors’ special report into the functioning of the European Union's seventh research framework programme (FP7), published today (7 June) and will follow the suggestions it makes for improving EU research funding in the future.
"The European Commission considers the Court's report is a reasonable assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of FP7,” said Michael Jennings, European Commission spokesman for Research, Innovation and Science. “All the recommendations are broadly accepted and will be addressed,” Jennings added.
In particular, he agreed with the Court's view that there is currently too much red tape involved for researchers in EU-funded projects, noting that is why the Commission made simplification one of the main objectives of the proposals for Horizon 2020, the research and innovation programme that will follow FP7 next year.
These proposals are currently under discussion by member states and the European Parliament, with some divergent views emerging. Last week calls from the European Parliament for the full costs of research to be met in Horizon 2020 fell on deaf ears, as EU Research Ministers confirmed the existing flat-rate reimbursement model will stay. (http://www.sciencebusiness.net/news/76143/MEPs-threaten-to-take-Horizon…).
Payments to individual researchers
As the Court of Auditors report points out, FP7 introduced flat rate payments in a limited number of areas, especially for payments to individual researchers, but that the main financing model continued to be the reimbursement of a proportion of actual costs. This complex model, combined with different rates of support depending on the type of participant, is burdensome, both for beneficiaries and the administration the Court said, reiterating its recommendation for a simpler approach.
In response the Commission said this is why it has proposed a single funding rate for all participants in a project, and a single flat rate for indirect costs in Horizon 2020.
The Court also criticised the fact that beneficiaries' accounting practices are not always accepted. In its defence, the Commission notes that FP7 rules do allow for this where practicable. “However, with nearly 35,000 beneficiaries of FP7 from more than 30 countries, all with different practices, it is not always possible for them to comply with the rules set by the Council and Parliament,” Jennings says in a statement.
Guidelines, focus, rules and processes
During FP7 the Commission made modifications to the rules to try to accept beneficiaries' rules more easily, and this will continue in Horizon 2020.
In addition, the Court made a number of observations about the way FP7 contracts were handled internally by different Commission services, each of which manage different programmes, each having their own guidelines, focus, rules and processes. However, the Commission says that having invited researchers and member state organisations to notify it of any identified differences it has received very few concrete examples.
Nonetheless, the Commission says it has taken steps to deal with any differences, and this will continue, with common services and harmonised IT tools under Horizon 2020.
The Court noted that in general, the Commission's attention in FP7 has focused mostly on ensuring high-quality spending, and less on efficiency. The Commission says it is pleased that efforts to improve service to participants have been recognised. A high level of service must continue, but the Court's comments on efficiency will be taken into account in the development of IT systems and the allocation of staff. Efficiency would be aided by simpler rules in Horizon 2020, both for beneficiaries and the administration.
In conclusion Jennings called on member states and the European Parliament to reach agreement quickly on Horizon 2020, “while maintaining the essential simplification that has been proposed.
Receive the Funding Newswire each Tuesday, our Policy Bulletin each Thursday, and news about bridging Europe’s east-west innovation gap twice a month in The Widening. 
