Strasbourg, 20/04/2004 (Agence Europe) - With its new special report 1/2004, the Court of Auditors once and for all kills off an old generally accepted idea whereby it is necessary to strengthen procedures and requirements imposed on researchers in order to prevent fraud, irregularities and errors in the management of the budget for the Community framework programme for research. The Court of Auditors has carried out a cross-the-board analysis that demonstrates, on the contrary, that the simpler and more understandable contracts and procedures are for their users, the fewer mistakes there are. Simplicity also has the advantage of facilitating controls, the Court explains, detecting no fraud in the management of the fifth framework programme, which took a while to be adopted at the time of Edith Cresson, but which was implemented during the term of office of the current Commission. The 6th framework programme whose implementation began one year ago has already made it possible to apply some of the reforms suggested by the Court. Others should be taken up during development of the 7th FPRD. Forthcoming work at the Court should cover the procedures for assessing research projects submitted to the Commission.
"We have found errors that the Commission cannot find", a member of the Court, François Colling, explained to two journalists. He stressed that some improvements were introduced with the Commission's help in the new rules for participation adopted for the 6th FPRD, but that the Council and Parliament are putting obstacles in the way of other proposals that would have made it possible to clarify the method for calculating the cost of research projects to be taken into account when calculating the Community's financial participation. Mr Colling insisted on the fact that controls have become easier with the 6th framework programme thanks to the concentration of funding on the largest projects in the context of integrated projects and networks of excellence. He mainly welcomed the introduction of a compulsory certification by external auditor and sanctions in the case of irregularities - which had not been foreseen at an earlier date. One of the remaining problems, although the Commission has also made progress, is that of breaking down responsibilities between the five directorates general. Mr Colling hoped that the role of "leader" would be clarified for DG Research. He nonetheless considers that it is on the basis of the 6th FPRD that "one can really say European research exists".
Commissioner Philippe Busquin welcomed the good cooperation with the Court which is not simply content with noting a situation but which has also made proposals for improving the situation after a comprehensive analysis of the system in place under the fifth framework programme. He stressed the importance of adopting the framework programme as soon as possible in order to apply it in the time set and to have the time needed for explaining the arrangements. The Commissioner also shares the Court's opinion on the fact that the structural organisation of research should be entrusted to the DG Research without, however, depriving the other DGs of their participation in directing research. In future, it could be useful to move toward a two-stage assessment, the Commissioner said. This would allow participants to present a twenty-page dossier for first selection before the final choice and thus to reduce the administrative burden which seems too heavy in the event of failure. "What is important is that we are making European research management professional", Philippe Busquin said, recalling that a working group chaired by Mr Marimon is to report end June on the implementation of the new 6th FPRD instruments with a view to the improvements that could be made in the next framework programme.