Commission promises 'corrective measures' to improve the FP6 instruments 

 

The Commission published its response to the report on 27 August. It points out that many of the expert panel's recommendations actually match the Commission's own findings and that it has already taken 'corrective measures' on some points. 

It also states that the period reviewed by the panel is only to a limited extent representative of the full term of the FP6, since the evaluation was carried out during the year in which most of the projects using the new instruments had just been launched. The Communication outlines an analysis on, and an answer to each of the 12 recommendations. 

The Commission's reactions to the main recommendations made by the expert panel can be summarised as follows: 

• Clarification of the instruments' goals : The Commission recognises that the goals of the new instruments have not been stated clearly enough. It will disseminate a 'summary table' restating each instrument's specific objective, expected scope, Community-financed activities and the Community financing mechanism before October 2004.
• 'Size' of projects and 'critical mass' : The Commission has already taken 'corrective measures' on clarification of these two terms. A 'read this first' notice has been drafted and included in the guide for proposers.'Good examples' of networks of excellence and integrated projects have been provided.
• Small and Medium-sized Enterprise (SME) and industry participation : The Commission admits that the networks of excellence are not really orientated for SMEs or industry. It mentions, however, a possibility of associating SME and industry to this instrument through their presence in steering committees, which provide advice on the conduct of networks. The Commission is also convinced that now that the 'size'-issue of the projects has been clarified, the integrated projects will attract more smaller actors.
• Increased flexibility for participants : The Commission rejects recommendations which would allow researchers to define their own specific research objectives and to make their own choice of instrument. This would diminish the value of EU support to research, says the Commission.
• Evaluation procedure : The Commission is reluctant to adopt the proposed two-step evaluation procedure. According to its experience, this method has led to longer delays in processing the proposals and increased the workload.
• Costs for participants and administrative hurdles : The Commission says that difficulties associated with implementing the new instruments should diminish as users familiarise themselves with these instruments. Some 'corrective mesures' for simplifying the submission of a proposal have already been taken.  

In the implementation of the FP6, the Commission can only make changes that fit into the existing legal framework. Measures requiring a change of the legal framework can only be applied with the adoption of the the EU's seventh framework programme (FP7). The 'corrective mesures' introduced in the remaining period of the FP6 will relate only to calls for proposals still to be issued.