FP7 Simplification Workshop

Transcription

1 FP7 Simplification Workshop WG 1 Community financial contribution Report

2 General Remarks Generally, WG participants supported the extended use of lump-sum and flat-rate financing as a major mode to simplify the implementation of EC funded research actions Participants also support continuity as way to avoid new complexity: no change for the sake of change! WG Participants also considered that the use of three forms a grant may take lump sums flat-rate financing taking the form of a scale of unit costs reimbursement of eligible costs (including flat-rates and pre-set lumps) should be analysed according to the characteristics and objectives of the different funding schemes ( a Marie Curie action is not identical to a collaborative research project ) However, as far as the form (and its detailed implementation) a grant may take is concerned, sensitive divergent views exist among participants.

3 1- Forms of EC Grant (1) Each form has its own advantages and disadvantages (1/2) : Lump-sum and scale of unit costs: advantages: avoid justification of costs easy to calculate and pay simplify reports disadvantages: may provide (substantially) less support than a reimbursement of eligible costs for the same level of efforts; may be contrary (especially scale of unit costs) to attraction of best researchers in university/industry by attractive wages.

4 1- Forms of EC Grant (2) Each form has its own advantages and disadvantages (2/2) : Reimbursement of eligible costs: advantages: guarantee that all eligible costs will be taken into consideration for the calculation and the payment of the support ( more in line with the reality of the activity ); can be based on existing practices, in particular participants usual accounting and management practices. disadvantages: requires justification of eligible costs; may lead to micro-management if usual accounting and management principles of contractors are (each time) questioned; may provide less financial security (reimbursement of actual costs) by opposition to a lump sum where the EC contribution is fixed.

5 1- Forms of EC Grant (3) Participants saw potential for a significant reduction of time-to-contract, especially in negotiation phase, for all three forms of grants: For Lump-sum and scale of unit costs: no negotiation on the costs of the resources expected to be involved ; For Reimbursement of eligible costs: the same result may be achieved if: definition of eligible costs is simplified; the cost of the resource is not questioned as being in conformity with participant usual accounting and management practices; possibility to use flat-rates and/or pre-set lump-sums for certain items is allowed.

6 1- Forms of EC Grant (4) Some WG participants considered that the use of scale of unit costs (flat-rate financing) must be implemented for funding schemes where SMEs are involved. But other WG participants prefer the use of reimbursement of eligible costs, also for funding schemes where SMEs are involved. The same opposition also applied for universities. Some WG participants considered that a form of simplification should be to propose an alternative to the consortium: either a scale of unit costs or a reimbursement of eligible costs It must be highlighted that no WG participant evoked the possibility of an alternative between lump sum and scale of unit costs or between lump sum and reimbursement of eligible costs (reason: scale of unit cost appears as a proxy of costs of resources)

7 1- Forms of EC Grant (5) Some WG participants highlighted the fact that proposing an alternative (scale of unit costs or reimbursement of eligible costs) at the level of the consortium has however the disadvantage to require an agreement among the members of a consortium. Other WG participants mentioned that proposing the alternative at the level of each participant may also lead to another complexity which is the use of two different form of funding inside the same consortium. All participants agreed that in any case, the reporting must be adapted to each form of grant.

8 2- Lump- sums As far as lump sum financing is concerned, no suggestion on how to calculate the EC contribution for Networks of Excellence has been proposed by WG participants. However, it has been mentioned by some WG participants that at least cost of the wages of staff involved in the NoE must be covered by the lump sum and that as a consequence, the staff dimension must be part of the calculation method.

9 3- Scale of unit costs As far as items to be used in order to design a scale of unit costs are concerned, the following items have been proposed: categories of personnel involved coefficient per country to be applied on categories of personnel a flat rate in order to cover other items like indirect costs, equipment, travel,... Some WG participants also mentioned the necessity to take into account: the field of research concerned and moreover the case of multidisciplinary project Some WG participants highlighted the difficulty to establish the value of these items, mentioning, as an example, huge disparities existing in the same country between the same kind of personnel even working in the same field of research.

10 4- Reimbursement of eligible costs (1) A large consensus among WG participants on: the possibility for any participant to charge its actual direct and indirect eligible costs, according to its usual accounting and management practices the possibility for any participant to opt for a flat rate deemed to cover its indirect eligible costs However, the question of the amount of the flat rate: 20%? Is it sufficient?

11 4- Reimbursement of eligible costs (2) Some WG participants also proposed to: allow the possibility for participants to use for certain type of costs, especially for personnel costs, their own usual scale of unit costs (confere: scale of wages of universities). use pre-set flat rates or lump sums for certain type of costs such as travel costs.

12 4- Reimbursement of eligible costs (3) European Court of Auditors representatives proposed an approach based on the definition of 3 categories of eligible costs: Personnel costs Main other direct costs: to be negotiated project by project (equipment, ) A flat-rate deemed to cover other costs like indirect costs and some small costs like travel and subsistence, Some WG participants supported this approach, other were in disagreement considering that any eligible costs must be able to be reported.

13 4- Reimbursement of eligible costs (4) As far as level of support rates are concerned (1/2): Some WG participants mentioned that universities without economic activities (=> no other source of revenue) have to receive a contribution allowing them to cover 100% of their specific direct costs (especially the costs of staff specifically hired for the project). It was also mentioned that it is important that such level of support is achieved, concerns were raise in this respect with a view to envisaged abolition of the traditional additional cost model. Several participants underlined the importance to maintain of the principle of cofinancing and to avoid double funding. In this context, the definition of cofinancing and receipts must be adressed. It has also to be taken into account that some EU universities have now the obligation to move to a full economic costs accounting system;

14 4- Reimbursement of eligible costs (5) As far as level of support rates are concerned (2/2): Some WG participants have evoked the question of the level of support rate for R&D and demonstration activities, depending on the results of the current revision of the Community State Aid Framework on Research and Development. It has also been proposed to allow the reimbursement of eligible costs incurred during the negotiation of the project and for the design and the modification of the content of the consortium agreement (especially for small actors, like SMEs)

15 4- Reimbursement of eligible costs (6) As far as audit certificates are concerned (1/2): All WG participants agreed that the number of audit certificates per contractor and per project must be reduced (1 or 2 maximum); Some WG participants evoked the possibility to exonerate some contractors to provide an audit certificate if the share of the EC contribution they generate is under a certain ceiling to be established. In this context, some WG participants have proposed: either to remove the 7% ceiling for management activities or to consider the costs of audit certificates as not being part of the 7% ceiling.

16 4- Reimbursement of eligible costs (7) As far as audit certificates are concerned (2/2): It has also been evoked the fact that by removing the term necessary costs and replacing it by costs determined and used according to participants usual accounting and management practices, in implementing the principles of economy, efficiency and effectiveness, audit certificates will certify that costs declared by the contractor are fully in conformity with the definition of eligible costs (which is not the case under FP6: necessity is not certified and must be justified by contractor and assessed by Commission officials).

17 5- Other issues All WG participants request a uniform interpretation of financial and legal rules in any Commission services They also request for stabilised and clear rules before the launch of FP7 More specific questions have also been addressed: VAT: is it possible to make it eligible costs for legal entity which are not allowed to get it back? Delays for reporting: is it possible to extend the delay for periodic reports from 45 to 60 calendar days? Co-financing: How to ensure co-financing where a funding scheme propose a support up to 100% of eligible costs? Financial liability: which form?

18 Nota Bene It must be noted that any position provided by the WG participants are not necessarily their final position but only personal positions or positions resulting from the WG brainstorming.