Brussels, 14/03/2013 (Agence Europe) - The Irish Presidency of the Council of Ministers of the EU, the European Parliament and the European Commission have been in negotiations since the beginning of January in an effort to find a compromise on the future “Horizon 2020” framework programme for research and innovation. Following two trialogues, progress has been made in reconciling originally divergent positions, notably on issues relating to the repayment of indirect costs, the principle of excellence versus balancing mechanisms and the ex post auditing system.
Repaying indirect costs. The very principle of negotiation is based on the supposition that differing positions will be discussed and that each interlocutor will be prepared to make concessions in an effort to establish a point on which a compromise can be reached. In some cases, however, there is simply not enough room for agreement and this is the case with regard to the question of repaying indirect costs. The hard-fought agreement reached at the Council (see EUROPE 10708) may be summed up in the 100/25 formula (repaying direct/indirect costs) but does not leave any room for flexibility in relation to the position of the Parliament, which had kept open the possibility of making real indirect costs eligible. According to a European source, however, this is one “red line” on which the Council will categorically not budge. The only possible flexibility that might be acceptable to the EP's rapporteur, Teresa Riera Madurell (S&D, Spain) would be to find a way of changing certain indirect costs for major infrastructure projects into direct costs. The Commission is working on this point and may propose changes by the summer.
Synergy between Horizons 2020 and structural funds. From a matter of principle, which provoked bitter discussions between ministers, the idea of synergy, pushed by the Parliament and certain member states (mainly from eastern Europe), between the framework programme and structural funds is gradually gaining ground. Parliament's proposal to include a specific article on this issue has now obtained majority support at the Council. However, any reference to specific measures appears out of the question. The reason is that the principle guiding “Horizon 2020” must remain excellence, according to the older member states, and cannot, therefore, have anything to do with a cohesion system.
Different audit deadlines. In its initial proposal, the Commission drew from general financial rules applicable elsewhere and opted to allow up to five years to conduct audits of projects subsidised. Most member states and the EP believe that this is too long. There appears to be consensus around a two-year period, even though the Commission considers this rather unrealistic. A debate took place to discuss whether this period could begin “after the final payment” or “after completion of the project”. The first option is the one favoured.
Move towards single SME management? Everyone is in agreement: SME participation should be increased to 20%. How to get to that point is, however, another story. An dedicated instrument for SMEs forms part of the current proposal but Parliament and SME representatives (Eurochambres, UEAPME, TAFTIE, EVCA, EARTO and EBAN) consider it insufficient. In an open letter dated Monday 4 March, these organisations addressed their concerns directly to the Commission. They are demanding the creation of a “single management undertaking” governing this instrument which should also have a budget of 4% of the overall Horizon 2020 envelope, as proposed by the Parliament. This subject provoked a lengthy debate during the most recent trialogue meeting. The Commission stuck to its position, opposing the idea of setting up a new body and promoted a decentralised approach.
Public-private partnerships, the fast-track concept and free access. An agreement is close on public-private partnerships, although the road in making this progress has been long. The Irish Presidency, however, still has a number of reservations because it considers that the list of criteria proposed by Parliament is too long. One of the novelties proposed by Parliament is the “fast track to innovation” concept. This concept is so new that even its authors found it difficult to precisely define its parameters. The Council is now awaiting clarification on this point, although it already appears sceptical about it. A workshop will be organised by EP rapporteurs on 26 March. Free access to scientific publications will be a general principle in the “Horizon 2020” programme and is not subject to question. This is not the case at all with regard to free data access. This subject is so sensitive because it involves security and intellectual property issues, and the way in which it will be built into the future framework programme has still not yet been fully worked out.
The next trialogue meeting will take place on 26 March and will focus on the European Institute of Technology (EIT). Stakeholders will only get down to full discussion of this the thorniest of matters on 9 April with the question of participation rules, although the cost model (percentage as opposed to exact amounts) will not be tackled until later. (JK/transl.fl)