European Funding: A History in Logos

Although the draft work programmes for the EC's new Framework Programme, Horizon Europe, are being leaked and the Portugese presidency is making it a priority to get things moving on it, the main question has yet to be answered: what's the logo for it, and how does it compare to previous iterations? Fortunately, fearless Fundermentals is here to help. 

H2020 Negotiations: a Helpful Diagram

I know you're all itching to know what the timetable will be for the negotiations over the next Framework Programme, Horizon 2020. Well itch no more. Here is a brief run down of the run up to its glorious launch in January 2014. 

•          May 2012: European Parliament’s Industry, Technology, Research and Energy (ITRE) Committee publishes report on H2020.
•          June 2012: Parliament publishes amendments to the proposals.
•          July 2012: final calls to FP7.
•          Nov/Dec 2012: Parliament votes on proposals. The European Council (made up of national science ministers) will vote around the same time.
•          Dec 2012/Jan 2013: discussion (or, if you will, a trialogue) between the Commission,   Council and Parliament about the proposals and amendments.
•          June 2013: agreement should have been reached.
•          Dec 2013: Adoption of legislative acts by Parliament and Council that will bring H2020 into force.

Now that might all sound a bit complicated. Luckily, the Commission have published this useful diagrammatic representation of the process. 

     I think that clears things up, don't you? 

Horizon 2020: Reading the Runes

UKRO, the UK Research Office in Brussels, have summarised where we're at with the development of Horizon 2020. If you belong to a subscribing institution, you can access this summary here.

It makes interesting reading, as much for reading between the lines as for the lines themselves. Whilst there's still plenty of gestation time for the EC's new baby, you can get a sense of how its developing. I've talked about the overall shape of Horizon 2020 elsewhere, but some recent developments that UKRO has highlighted include:

• EIT: there's no separate provision for the European Institute of Technology. To me, this suggests that they want closer integration with other parts of the Framework Programme, but does it also mean that the EIT is quietly being sidelined or shelved, that it is being reabsorbed back into the body from which it emerged?
• ERC: the latest proposals don't specify the different schemes as 'objectives'. This suggests that the EC wants to allow the ERC room to develop and introduce new schemes as and when necessary. Which, in turn, suggests that the EC has confidence in the Council, and is going to allow it a little more independence.
• Societal Challenges: this is based around six multidisciplinary areas. These are evolving as we speak, but some interesting developments recently. These include 'Smart, Green & Integrated Transport,' for which the EC has added a new section on 'evidence-based transport policy for the long term.' So the EC is wanting to expand future transport beyond the scientific and technical to include socio-economic policy implications. 'Resource Efficiency & Climate' has changed its name to 'Climate Action & Resource Efficiency including Raw Materials', which makes clearer the overall aim and direction of the challenge, and ecosystems have been made more of a priority within this. 'Inclusive, Innovative & Secure Societies', which is closest to the current 'Socioeconomic Sciences & Humanities', has been simplified, and appears to be moving away from the FP7 theme from which it emerged. Whilst the Humanities were never a huge player in FP7, it looks like it will be even less so under Horizon 2020.
• Marie Curie: the EC is obviously wanting to drum home exactly what each of the Marie Curie schemes will do. They've ditched the original headings, and gone for headings that provide more explanation of what each scheme is intended for. For example 'Research staff exchange' becomes 'stimulating innovation through cross-fertilisation of knowledge.' Got it?
• Industrial Leadership & Competitiveness Frameworks: not a lot of change here, although in the most recent drafts the EC is emphasising the need for these underlying technologies to link more explicitly to the societal challenges.

I would encourage you to read the UKRO document in full, and sign up for alerts that will keep you up to date with developments.

Horizon 2020: What's it Worth?

Plans for Horizon 2020 (which, as I don't need to remind you, is the new name for FP8) are coming on a pace, and UKRO reported today that the EC is currently grappling with the Gordian knot of what the Commission should pay successful applicants. The obvious answer would be, 'well, what they ask for,' but it's not that simple. Most European funding is given on a part funding or 'co-financing' basis, often calculated on an algorithm that makes the calculation of Easter look simple.

The current 'reimbursement rates' for FP7 are here (thanks, EUResearch, 'your Swiss guide to European research'). It all looks so simple, doesn't it? However, it's not as straightforward as the Swiss would have us believe, because these figures need to be cross referenced against an indirect cost rates matrix, which varies between institutions, and can be the 'simplified (ha!) method', 'standard flat rate', or 'special transition flat rate'.

Anyway, looking forward, UKRO has read the runes and it looks like the EC might propose Horizon 2020 reimbursement rates as follows:

• up to 75% for research activities,
• 50% for innovation activities, and
• 60% for combined research and innovation activities.
• Marie Curie and ERC would be up to 100%, as at present.

These would be for all participants (both academia and industry) and would apply to an entire project, so there wouldn't be the distinction for non-profit public bodies, secondary and higher education establishments, research organisations and SMEs, or for different activities within a project.

Indirect costs would be a flat rate 75% of personnel costs, again for all participants. No 'real' indirect cost system would be available. ERC would have indirect costs of 25% of personnel costs, and support actions (CSAs) 7% of personnel costs.

UKRO has already had feedback on these proposals from a handful of institutions, most of whom are worried that the rates would work out worse than those currently being offered. They weren't sure that having a single rate was all it was cracked up to be, and were particularly worried that management costs would be less than 100%, making coordination a lot less attractive. Also, the lower reimbursement rate for mixed activity projects (including research and innovation, which the EC is particularly keen to encourage) might actually discourage organisations from participating in such activities. As to indirect rates, most would prefer the current 'special transition flat rate' (of 60%) to continue.

Those institutions that have done some modelling believe that only projects that are personnel-heavy would be better under the new regime. In addition, the ERC might be badly hit, with a move from a 20% flat rate for indirect costs to 25% for personnel-only costs could be significant. There might be some savings made in the cost of managing the grants, but these, it was thought, would be outweighed by the losses.

The full UKRO analysis is available here (you have to be a subscriber to access this) and they would welcome other feedback by 9 September. So get your calculators out and get modelling!

New Marie Curie Schemes

Two new pilot schemes will be introduced for the next round of Marie Curie Actions, due to be published on 20 July. They are intended to fill a perceived gap in the provision of training for early stage researchers (ESRs).

• Innovative Doctoral Programmes (IDPs). This replaces the ‘Monosite Initial Training Networks (ITNs)’, and aims to encourage crossovers between disciplines, sectors and states. Whilst there are plenty of doctoral schools across Europe, it's relatively rare to see ones with genuinely international, interdisciplinary, cross-sectoral programmes. The IDP is intended to rectify this.
• European Industrial Doctorates (EIDs). This is intended to encourage companies to get involved in doctoral training. The EID should involve at least two participants (one from each sector), and possible associated partners in any sector/discipline/country. Each researcher must be enrolled in a doctoral programme, be employed by at least one of the participants, spend at least 50% in private sector, and be jointly supervised by both participants. There should be 1-5 researchers per project.

There is considerable flexibility in the new schemes, but if all goes according to plan there will be even more flexibility in Horizon 2020. The EC is intending to simplify the current range of eight Marie Curie schemes into four broad schemes (as mentioned in an earlier post):

• A scheme for early stage researchers (i.e. doctoral students): this would allow a host institution to put in place a network for providing training for doctoral students from across Europe;
• A scheme for more experienced researchers: this would provide individual fellowships to encourage mobility and career development opportunities;
• A scheme for research staff: a smaller fund for short term exchange and secondments between institutions.
• A scheme to match fund national fellowship schemes: this would be see the continuation of the 'cofund' scheme.

Part of this push has come from the responses to the consultation on the FP8 Green Paper, in which there was a specific question about strengthening and promoting research mobility (question 23). 70% of respondents considered Marie Curie to be important, but felt that it needed a higher budget, more collaboration with business, and more streamlining.

She Would Say That, Wouldn't She?

Over in Brussels, in an item that will shock no-one, the EC's research commissioner, Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, is proposing that the research budget be increased for Horizon 2020 (nee FP8). She suggested that it be increased from the €50bn for the current Framework Programme to over €80bn, a rise of some 46%.

To misquote Mandy Rice Davies, well, she would say that, wouldn't she? It might have been more newsworthy if she'd thrown up her hands and said, 'guys, I've been thinking. Perhaps we should slash the research budget, and scrap the post of research commissioner. I mean, who needs it?'

More deliciously, she claims that the proposed increase would be 'better value' for the taxpayer. Which is reassuring: everyone's a winner. The budget will now be considered by the European Parliament and Council, which, as you know, are famous for quick, decisive responses.

I sound cynical, but it would be great if the 46% increase is approved. In a time of recession ploughing money into research and development is one of the safest ways out of it. However, as a news item, 'research commissioner suggests more money for research' ranks alongside 'dog bites man' or 'small earthquake: no-one hurt' as an exciting headline.

And the Winner Is...

News has come through on the wires from our Brussels correspondent: the EC has announced the winner of the 'Name FP8' competition. Hurray! Get ready with the party poppers, but don't touch the twiglets and low alcohol cava til I say.

As I'm sure you remember, the EC was looking for a snappier title for the new, all encompassing Framework Programme. Something that summed up the brave new world of funding. Something aspirational and forward looking, European and twenty-first century. Something better than the 'Common Strategic Framework for Research and Innovation.' They selected three suggestions from the general public, and put these to a vote.

I can now announce the winner. In reverse order:

• 'Discover 2020', with 2478 votes;
• 'Imagine 2020', with 2785 votes;
• 'Horizon 2020', with 3055 votes.

And I therefore declare 'Horizon 2020' the new FP8. The full and official name will apparently be 'the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation'. Now call me an old cynic, but if that's the full name I bet it will get shortened to 'the Framework Programme' rather than 'Horizon 2020'. But we'll see. I wish it all the best, and hope it has more luck than it's close namesake, Deepwater Horizon. Or indeed the Talbot Horizon. Or the crew of 'Event Horizon.'

Hmm. Not an auspicious group. Is it too late to change my vote to 'Monster Raving Loony 2020'?

Interestingly, it turns out that there is already a European initiative called 'Horizon 2020'. Ah, only in Europe. A zillion Euro budget, an army of bureaucrats, some of the greatest minds in the Western world, and they still don't know what's going on down the corridor.

Feedback from FP8 Conference

The EC held a conference in Brussels on 10 June to discuss 'the Common Strategic Framework for EU Research and Innovation'. Yes, I know it's a bit of a mouthful, but don't yawn and click on to a more interesting page. This is important, as it sees the EC taking the first faltering steps towards formulating the replacement for the Framework Programme (FP7).

UKRO have provided an excellent summary of the conference. Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Commissioner for Research, Innovation and Science, fed back the findings of the recent consultation on FP8. No great surprises here: people were generally supportive of the proposals to coordinate and amalgamate a number of European funding streams, that there was a need for 'radical simplification' (hallelujah!), keep what works, jettison what doesn't, and cover all stages of the research process, from blue skies, to directed, to follow on and exploitation.

Her talk was followed by those of a number of different stake holders, including representatives from the ERC, CERN, and EuroHORCs, as well as the erstwhile Commissioner for Research, Janez Potočnik. There was some talk about the need for an increased budget, but I do worry that research funding will be a casualty to the tough economic times we're living through, and the bail out of Greece and Ireland will leave little room - or appetite - for bigger central budgets. But let's hope.

And finally...the conference was an opportunity to hear the shortlist for the new framework's name. They - foolishly - ignored my suggestion of FP8, and went instead for either:

• Discover 2020
• Horizon 2020
• Imagine 2020

Which all make me feel a bit queasy, if I'm frank. Sort of remind me of people standing around a field holding bottles of Coke and watching the sunrise, singing. Or, worse still, an infantilisation of research, like they're aimed at getting five year olds interested in science. Can you really see yourself suggesting to an academic that they consider an application to 'Imagine 2020'? With a straight face? No, me neither. Anyway, you can vote for your favourite before 17 June.

Shame there's no option for 'none of the above'...

UK's 'Dr Doolittle' Stance on FP8

BIS has published the UK's official response to the EC's consultation on the future of the Framework Programme. The 'Common Strategic Framework', which will take over from FP7, is intended to bring together a number of European funding streams, including the Framework Programme, the Cohesion Policy and the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme.

Generally, BIS was happy with the proposals, and it thought that the time was right to consider the way forward. However, it did suggest that the EC should consider a 'pushmi-pullyu' set up for future funding:

'The UK proposes that the bulk of future funding is based on two broad pillars addressing: a key technology/knowledge "push" and a challenge "pull".'

A push and a pull. Hmm. It took me a while to get my head around this. When does a push become a pull? Surely when it comes to research funding any kind of impetus is really just, well, a moving force, whether it be pushing or pulling? Why make the distinction? Isn't this all just semantics?

Well. From what I understand, the 'challenge pull' is to tug recalcitrant mules on to the green fields of the 'grand challenges'. Here they should ruminate on the lush topics of climate change, energy, water, and food security, protection of natural resources and the ageing population. The 'technology push' is when you open the field gate, crack the whip and let the young colts gambol in the wide open rolling plains.

So we're all clear then? That's all very well, but what happens when, instead of mules and colts you have a pushmi-pullyu? What if the colts are recalcitrant and the mules gambol? Oh the future of Euro-funding. It's a positive farmyard of poetential misunderstanding. If we could only talk to the animals...

'I'll Name that Scheme in One, Tom...'

Interesting news from the beleagured David Willetts. Research Fortnight was reporting on Tuesday that he'd asked readers of the Times to help him name the new 'British Nobel' prize (you'll need to subscribe to the Times to see the original article, here). The prize was announced in the 'Plan for Growth' at the time of the Budget in March. It's intended to kick start a buzz around engineering and science. Allegedly. The prize is likely to be awarded every two years and could be worth up to £1 million.

Now two things occurred to me about this. Firstly, at a time when small grants are being cut left right and centre, bunging £1m at one scientist every couple of years doesn't seem like a great use of public (or private endowment) funds. Wouldn't it be better to - say - fund 100 pilot projects? Or 500 young scientists to go to conferences, now that the Royal Society is cutting its funding for conference attendance?

Secondly, what is it with people asking us to name things? Willetts' request came shortly after the EC's competition to find a new name for FP8. Is this the Big Society at action in research funding? Pitch in and help, everyone! Feel involved! Though of course there's no money available at the end of it...

Find a Name for FP8

Don't you just love it? Something to cheer you up on a Monday morning. The EC has launched a competition to name the new framework programme. No, no, none of that 'FP8' talk at the back!
Yes, it's all a bit Multi-coloured Swap Shop, but none the worse for it. So think of a name, ideally something that sums up your experience of European funding, with an acronym that isn't a word for a bodily function in any of the EC's 23 official languages.

Hmm...it's harder than I thought...

You can submit your entries here by 10 May 2011. The winning name will be announced by Commissioner Geoghegan-Quinn at the Common Strategic Framework conference in Brussels on 10 June.

'No FP8' Shock

The Commissioner for Science, Research and Innovation, Maire Geoghegan-Quinn is quoted in this week's Times Higher as saying that there will be no Framework Programme 8.

Blimey. But read on, and her grand vision becomes clearer. Speaking before the FP8 Green Paper was launched earlier this week, Ms Geoghegan-Quinn said that "we have been told that the bureaucracy is too much, that there is a huge administrative burden...European research funding is currently spread across too many small programmes...(and) in some cases there are different rules and procedures between them, making it more complicated to apply for funding."

So, instead of a speparate FP8 there will be a merged programme with the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme and European Union funding for the European Institute of Innovation and Technology. This central funding pool - the Common Strategic Framework - will allow researchers to make just one application for funding from all streams, and successful applicants will face just one accounting system when they receive a grant.

Simples, as that irritating meerkat says. Well, let's hope so. Thing is, there's been talk in the past about simplifying European funding, and it's not materialised yet. We'll watch and wait.

FP8 Green Paper

UKRO have got an early draft copy of the EC's Green Paper on FP8. This is a discussion paper, intended to generate debate on their proposals for FP8. It suggest five improvements to the Framework Programme, namely:

• Clarifying objectives and how they are translated into the supported activities, while maintaining flexibility to respond to emerging policy needs.
• Simplifying participation, in order to lower administrative burdens, to address the low success rates in some parts of the programme, and to reduce the time to grant.
• Reducing complexity in the EU funding landscape. The Commission accepts that the research and innovation programmes have expanded organically over time, so that there is now a confusion of schemes and objectives. There needs to be more coordination.
• Broadening participation in EU programmes - particularly amongst industry and SMEs, female researchers, and newer member states.
• Increasing the impact of EU supported research - eg by better uptake of results by companies and investors. So there should be better communication of results.
  

The Green Paper asks 24 questions, including:

• How should the 'instruments' (i.e. funding schemes) be streamlined?
• What should be the balance between big and small projects?
• How can industry involvement be strengthened?

The consultation will open at the beginning of February, and the deadline for responses is 20 May 2011. You can see the full draft Green Paper on the UKRO website, but you need to subscribe to their Information Services. This is free to members of staff at Kent.

Your Chance to Have Your Say on FP8

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is consulting the sector on what shape, and what focus, FP8 should have. In his introdcution to the consultation document David Willets said that 'we would like to see the programme develop in the future so it becomes less bureaucratic; more attractive to participants, especially businesses; and achieves demonstrable impact in terms of high value goods and service and improved policy-making.'

But what do you think? The document poses 42 questions, including:

• What should the UK’s high-level objectives be for FP8?
• How can FP8 support innovation in the UK?
• What are your views on the split of the FP7 budget between specific programmes? Should this change in FP8?
• Which areas of Framework Programme funding provide the most EU added-value? And which the least?
• Can efficiencies be found in the Framework Programme because of overlaps between different areas of funding?
• Which grand challenges are best tackled on an EU-wide rather than a national level? Within these areas which particular aspects would benefit from an interdisciplinary focus?
• How should FP8 engage with countries outside the EU?
• Should ERC’s current emphasis on funding a single investigator continue into FP8?
  

The full consultation document is available here, and you have until 4 January 2011 to respond, so make sure your views are heard and reply now!

LERU : Position Paper on FP8

The League of European Research Universities (LERU) has issued a position paper on FP8. Amongst its recommendations are:

• Increased funding to meet the EU2020 goals, particularly for the ERC. In fact, the LERU liked the ERC generally, saying the peer review of other areas should take a leaf out of the ERC's book, and that auditing should be simplified and eligibility widened to encourage more participation;
• Similarly, it liked the Marie Curie actions, thought they should be supported, and considered recent moves to shift them from DG Research to DG Education as a wrong step;
  
• Responsive-mode funding should be increased, and that there should be more transparency in the selection of topics for managed programmes;
• Liked the Joint Programming Initiatives in theory, but thought they lacked transparency;
• Approved the moves by the EC to simplify the process and procedures around the Framework Programme.

The full text of the position paper can be accessed via the link, here.

Proposal to Simplify EC's Funding Process Published

Good news from Europe: an EC proposal to cut the bureaucratic nightmare of applying to the Framework Programme has been published. It's intended to cut the byzantine rules governing the negotiation of the funding contract, but retain the necessary accountability and transparency.

The proposals also suggest that the payment procedures be simplified, including allowing researchers to submit expenses claims in full rather than having to submit hundreds of smaller ones for individual items. Researchers will have to show that project milestones—or outputs—have been met, but they won’t have to account for every single euro.

It is hoped that the proposals will also make the auditing of Framework projects less onerous.

Reported in Research Fortnight, the proposals will suit those applying for funding for basic, or frontier research projects. They are intended to attract more applications from organisations such as small businesses, Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, the research commissioner, said.

This leaner approach has received widespread praise. “It is a breakthrough on the scale of the ERC,” says Jerzy Langer, a member of Academia Europaea, the European academy of sciences. “As various institutions have different cost systems, this flexibility and understanding will make the programmes much simpler and easier to deal with.”

“One can see the amount of thinking that was put behind this communication [from the Commission],” says Thomas Estermann, a senior programme manager at the European University Association. “Finally this issue is being taken seriously by all players, and it is accepted that some areas of the Framework programme do not work well and need to be addressed.”

The Commission’s proposals will now be forwarded to the European Parliament and the Council of Europe, who will discuss the paper and publish their responses. Changes to Framework’s legal or financial structures need to be approved by the European Parliament.

European Funding and the Current Crisis

Some academics have been in touch expressing concern that the current economic turmoil and bail outs in Europe will affect the EC's research budget. I asked UKRO about this, and they confirmed that they will not affect the budget of FP7. This budget is set in stone and can’t be touched. In fact the amount of money set aside for FP7 Calls each year is increasing up until 2013, so not only is the budget protected, it is actually increasing each year up until that point.
This is an important message as a lot more people are now turning to FP7 for funding given the question marks over national sources of funding, even people that have sometimes been put off in the past.
However, after 2013, when it comes to FP8, then this is when there is no certainty. A whole new financial perspectives will have to be agreed and whilst we are still some way from that point it would be foolish to assume that Member States, most of whom will still be battling to cut deficits then, will be as keen to contribute as much as they did in the past.

Germany Sets Out its Stall for FP8

Germany has published a position paper on FP8. This lays out its thoughts on how the new Framework Programme should shape up. Nerves are obviously jangling around the Bundestag around the question of raising the budget, but otherwise it's quite a thoughtful paper. Here are the main points in summary:

• Policy - FP8 should make a major contribution towards implementing the five Ljubljana initiatives central to the development of the ERA;
• Central areas of FP7 should be continued - such as collaborative research, frontier research (ERC), SME measures, transnational and intersectoral mobility, research infrastructures and international co-operation;
• Co-operation Specific Programme – should be continued (and that collaborative research continues to be the core of the FP);
• Grand Challenges - research and development should contribute to the grand challenges of our time, such as climate, energy, mobility, digital society and health. Research aims should be developed for the coming decade and the FP specific programmes should work towards realising these aims. However, the aims must be open to all types of technologies and solutions, so that lead markets can be developed;
• Key Technologies Specific Programme – this should be introduced to strengthen Europe’s industries;
• Innovation - FP8 should contribute towards implementing the ‘innovation union’ of the EU 2020 Strategy. There should be an Innovation Specific Programme, and the EIT should be integrated into FP8, as well as innovation measures from the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme (CIP). The involvement of SMEs as drivers of innovation should be increased. Funds should be concentrated on strategic technologies and fields related to social challenges. This would support knowledge transfer. Research and innovation activities should be better linked and this should be integrated across FP8. There should also be infrastructure development, standardisation, education programmes and measures to support important lead markets. European Technology Platforms should become Technology and Innovation Platforms, and should also draft innovation strategies for the development of lead markets. There should be a ‘European High-Tech Strategy’. There could be further synergies within the knowledge triangle, and the EUREKA and EUROSTARS programmes could be integrated into FP8;
• European Research Council (ERC) - this should be strengthened. The ERC should consider funding cross-border projects of excellent institutions or other structured measures;
• Marie Curie Actions - researcher mobility is important and should be supported;
• Peer review and the importance of excellence - scientific and technological excellence must be the decisive criterion for choosing projects in all FP areas and may not be weakened under any circumstances in favour of cohesion objectives. Cohesion instruments such as structural funds should on the other hand strengthen the development of excellence. More evaluators (peer reviewers) from industry should be used;
• FP monitoring and evaluation - ex-post evaluations of the previous FPs should be used to develop future FPs. Monitoring the FP should be the responsibility of CREST (Comité de la recherche scientifique et technique);
• International collaboration - FP8 should be open to international collaboration which should be included even more strongly in the thematic priorities than in FP7, and that there should be close co-ordination between FP Programme Committees and the Strategic Forum for International Co-operation (SFIC), with FP8 promoting the implementation of the SFIC roadmap;
• Infrastructures - the co-ordination of the European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures (ESFRI) and the infrastructure activities of FP8 should be strengthened. Existing infrastructures outside ESFRI that require European integration should also be supported under FP8;
• Joint Programming - should be driven by Member States, use primarily existing instruments, and be financed by Member States and the FP;
• SMEs - 15% of the FP budget should be used for SMEs if possible, primarily for their participation in collaborative projects, although SME specific funding measures should be continued – smaller projects which can rapidly be implemented should also be introduced;
• Policy oriented research - should be funded within the thematic priorities;
• On funding instruments:
  • New instruments should only be introduced with good judgement; the number should remain constant;
  • the Collaborative Project (CP) must continue to be the standard tool of the FP;
  • Networks of Excellence (NoEs) have often not been successful and should not be continued in the current form. They could be replaced by an instrument which aims at the formation of research and innovation-driven clusters consisting of public and private institutions and aiming at the pooling and joint use of R&D resources, the coordination of research and innovation activities, staff exchanges and knowledge transfer as well as the joint implementation of application-oriented projects (competence centres);
  • Co-ordination and Support Actions (CSAs), including ERA-NETs and ERA-NET+ should be continued. ERA-NET+ should be used to implement Joint Programming too;
  • Measures under Article 185 (ex 169) and Joint Technology Initiatives under Article 187 (ex 171) are welcomed in principle; in some areas however, currently complex procedures can be simplified. The Public Private Partnerships (PPP) created within the framework of the EU recovery plan have proved to be much less bureaucratic than the technology initiatives created under Article 187 (ex 171). To simplify things for applicants, these measures should be implemented by applying the FP rules for participation and the general legal FP framework;
  • A central problem of EU research funding is the growing diversification of EU programmes and instruments – this growing complexity and fragmentation of EU research funding and makes participation in the FP difficult. In future, a coordinated set of rules with simple and clear structures as well as standardised and co-ordinated procedures must be established;
  • Whilst collaborative projects and ERA-NET/ERA-NET+ should be continued, there should be increased funding opportunities for unconventional or risky projects;
  • There should be more demonstration projects;
• On simplification:
  • The paper contains a whole section on simplification;
  • There should be considerable simplifications to procedures, characterised by mutual trust and the acceptance of nationally tested and recognized procedures – but transparency and fairness should be maintained;
  • Some interesting points raised include are:
    • Flat rates - the option of applying fixed rates when calculating project costs should be broadened to include the reimbursement of personnel costs in all programme areas. The possibility of using fixed rates for accounting, however, should never be obligatory or exclude the billing of actual costs. Fixed rates should be based on country-specific cost rates. Marie Curie fixed rates are a proven basis for reimbursements of personnel costs;
    • VAT - should be an eligible cost, which is possible after the amendment of the Financial Regulation and is applied in other programmes; and
    • Start dates - all projects should start no later than nine months after the deadline, with negotiations being simplified.

FP8: Under Starter's Orders...

The formal process to develop the next Framework Programme (FP8) is expected to start in early 2011, reports UKRO. Prior to this the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) will hold a UK stakeholder consultation to gather input for the formal UK position on FP8. This is expected to be carried out in the third quarter of 2010.

BIS recently participated in an event hosted by the Royal Academy of Engineering which brought together UK business stakeholders to share their views on the current and future Framework Programmes. The slides from this event are now available via the link above, and would be of interest to subscribers wishing to find out more about the FP8 development timetable and the challenges faced by business when participating in FP7.

FP8 Begins to Take Shape

In the same way that Christmas seems to come round quicker and quicker each year, Framework Programmes seem to be speeding up. Barely have we got FP7 underway, it seems, than FP8 is peeping around the corner. Word on the (funding) street is that the EC is considering largescale changes this time around. Of course, it's still along way off, but there's talk of 'joint programming' - where national funders feed in to a joint funding pot in areas of strategic importance (there's a pilot one on the go for dementia) - and of 'grand challenges', such as energy, security, ageing, environment - i.e. the same kind of areas as RCUK identified. The real debate will start in earnest in Autumn next year, but it's heartening to hear that the UK (via BIS and RCUK) are more engaged with the consultation than they have been in the past.

Another interesting aside: under FP7 the EC committed to using 22% of the budget for SMEs. Currently it's only used 16% for this end, so if it wants to keep to its original commitment, it will have to up its percentage to 27%. So if you want European funding in the next few years, get in to bed with an SME - pronto.

One final point. Try googling FP8: nothing out there but Panasonic Lumix DMC-FP8. Not for much longer, I think...One of the camera's reviews says that the 'FP8' has a feature which is 'an uncomfortable annoyance,' and the manual provides 'not one word on how to proceed.' Any similarity with European funding is purely conincidental.