Brussels, 11/05/2012 (Agence Europe) - The rules for participating in the next framework programme for research and innovation (Horizon 2020), which the European Commission puts forward in its draft, are deemed by the European University Association (EUA) not to reach the desired balance between the needs of the different parties participating in the programme and the simplification of the system.
In the coming months, the negotiations between the member states on the general budget for Horizon 2020 (€80.2 million is planned, compared to €50 billion for the previous programme) and on the rules of functioning are going to become more intense, with the aim of a compromise between the Council of the EU and the European Parliament over the course of 2013.
Although the EUA, which represents more that 850 university bodies from 47 European countries, welcomes, in a declaration published on Thursday 10 May, certain of the Commission's steps aiming to set out a less complex system (reimbursement of all direct costs, with the exception of those for prototyping activities and those already co-financed) and a clearer system in several aspects (review of the control strategy and management of the framework programme), it considers that “simplification does not necessarily mean that all participants should be considered in the same way under the same model”. It is the proposal for fixing a single rate of reimbursement for indirect costs, which is causing particular concern.
Fixed flat rate. The Commission states in its draft that “for indirect costs, the calculation is radically simplified” and is thus fixed at a flat rate of 20% of the total eligible direct costs. The EUA considers that this rate is too weak and that it “does not sufficiently cover the actual indirect project costs”. According to the calculations carried out by the EUA, the analysis of a “variety of real projects clearly shows that a 20% flat rate is much too weak and does not sufficiently cover the actual indirect costs of a project, in particular in those cases where indirect costs are high”.
Co-financing. The Commission's proposal to reduce the reimbursement of indirect costs (the average reimbursement rate in the 7th framework programme being 60%) is principally in order to put forward the model of co-financing by third parties. Yet such a model, which is ultimately based on a contribution from public authorities, will not work in a context of economic crisis, according to the EUA. And particularly today in Europe, with its different measures for reducing budgetary deficits.
Difference in structure of costs. Another argument which the EUA highlights is that of the difference in the structure of the costs. This difference is reflected in terms of both the research domain (intensive use of equipment and infrastructure) and the legal framework, specific to each member state, which governs the way universities and research institutes work. In fact, in certain countries, buildings are made available by public authorities, while in other cases, universities must assure these costs through their own budget.
Vague terminology. In numerous cases, where the costs declared are recognised as not being eligible for reimbursement in the 7th framework programme (2007-2013), the complex terminology and the absence of clear definitions can be challenged directly. In the opinion of the EUA, “this led to a high complexity in the whole implementation and management cycle of projects and to diversity in the interpretation of these rules”.
Recommendations. The EUA puts forward that the Commission amend its proposal to include the general rule of reimbursement of all costs incurred by a project. To this end, in order to create an environment of mutual trust, the national methods of cost calculation, which are specific to the universities, should be accepted by the Commission on the basis of “light touch certification”. Although the rules of participation in the current framework programme already permitted it, national methods were never applied, according to the EUA. In cases where indirect costs cannot be established with certainty (amortisation of infrastructure and equipment) a flat rate of 40%, alongside complete recovery of the direct costs, should be proposed. (J.K./transl.fl)