BETA


2015/2318(INI) Cost effectiveness of the 7th Research Programme

Progress: Procedure completed

RoleCommitteeRapporteurShadows
Lead CONT AYALA SENDER Inés (icon: S&D S&D), DLABAJOVÁ Martina (icon: ALDE ALDE) NOVAKOV Andrey (icon: PPE PPE), THEURER Michael (icon: ALDE ALDE), TARAND Indrek (icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE), VALLI Marco (icon: EFDD EFDD)
Committee Opinion ITRE
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 54

Events

2017/11/20
   EC - Commission response to text adopted in plenary
Documents
2017/06/13
   EP - Results of vote in Parliament
2017/06/13
   EP - Decision by Parliament
Details

The European Parliament adopted by 573 votes to 28, with 18 abstentions, a resolution on cost effectiveness of the 7th Research Programme.

Members recalled that although the multiannual financial framework (MFF) 2007-2013 has come to an end, the implementation of the Seventh Framework Programme for research and innovation (FP7) is still ongoing.

However, no comprehensive cost effectiveness analysis exists concerning FP7.

FP7 : FP7 represented a total voted budget of EUR 55 billion , accounting for an estimated 3 % of total research and technological development (RTD) expenditure in Europe, or 25 % of competitive funding.

The main recipients among the 29 000 organisations participating in FP7 were, inter alia, universities (44 % of FP7 funding), research and technology organisations (27 %), large private companies (11 %) and SMEs (13 %), while the public sector (3 %) and civil society organisations (2 %) represented a less significant share.

Although considered to be a success, weaknesses were highlighted such as: (i) high administrative burden and cumbersome legal and financial rules, (ii) insufficient focus on industry participation and societal impact, (iii) high threshold for newcomers; low average success rate for proposals and applicants.

Members are concerned that FP7 will not be fully executed and evaluated before 2020, which could cause delays in future follow-up programmes. The Commission is urged to publish an evaluation report as soon as possible and at the latest before it presents the post-Horizon-2020 research programme.

The Court of Auditors expressed concerns about the high level of error regarding research, development and innovation (RDI).

In 2015, of the 150 transactions that the Court audited, 72 (48 %) were affected by error.

Cost effectiveness under FP7 : Members stressed that cost effectiveness should be measured against economy, efficiency and effectiveness (sound financial management) in achieving the policy objectives. They observed that:

FP7 rules were not sufficiently compatible with general business practices; the control system needed to have a better balance between risk and control; beneficiaries needed better guidance to cope with the complexity of the scheme; the reimbursement methods needed to be more efficient.

In this regard, Parliament expressed concern that the annual activity report of DG RTD indicated that, by the end of 2015, 1 915 FP7 projects worth EUR 1.63 billion had still not been completed , which could delay the implementation of Horizon 2020.

Members insisted on the need to:

ensure that FP7 and national research funding is coherent with EU rules on state aid so as to avoid inconsistencies and duplications of funding; better target FP7 financial instruments so as to ensure that newcomers with limited access to finance in the research and innovation field are supported.

Future prospects under Horizon 2020 : by the end of 2015, 198 calls with a submission deadline by that date had been published for Horizon 2020. In response to these calls, a total of 78 268 proposals were received, 10 658 of which were put on the main or reserve list. This means a success rate of around 14 %, taking into account only the eligible proposals.

The report noted that cost savings of EUR 551 million in FP7 were made compared with FP6. The Commission also endeavoured to further simplify the implementation of Horizon 2020 compared with FP7 and DG RTD is trying to further reduce overhead costs by outsourcing contract management to executive agencies and other bodies. Under Horizon 2020, 55 % of the budget will be managed by executive agencies.

Parliament concluded that the Commission – overall – managed the FP7 cost effectively and that the programme also improved its efficiency despite the delays and repeated error rates in its implementation.

It welcomed the fact that under Horizon 2020:

the programme structure is less complex; a single set of rules now applies; there is now one funding rate per project; indirect costs are covered by a flat rate (25 %); only the financial viability of project coordinators is checked; a single participant portal was created for managing grants and experts; grants, expert contracts and archiving are managed electronically.

Members welcomed the creation of a Common Support Centre (CSC), which will help to coordinate and deliver the programme in an efficient and harmonised manner. The role for the National Contact Points (NCP) should be increased in order to provide quality technical support on the ground. Annual assessment of results, training and rewarding NCPs that perform effectively will increase the success rate of the Horizon 2020 programme.

The share of Horizon 2020 funds allocated to small and medium sized enterprises increased from 19.4 % in 2014 to 23.4 % in 2015 and Members recommended that this trend be encouraged.

Members underlined the need to ensure that Horizon 2020's best practices are used in defining the programme. They suggested more funding for innovation and increasing flexibility between budgets of the different sub-programmes so as to avoid a lack of funding for those qualified as ‘excellent’.

Lastly, Member States are called on to make an extra effort to meet the target of 3 % of GDP being invested in research considering that this would boost excellence and innovation. Members called on the Commission to examine the possibility of proposing a Science Covenant at local, regional and national level, building on the dynamic already created by the Covenant of Mayors.

Documents
2017/06/13
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2017/06/12
   EP - Debate in Parliament
2017/05/10
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary
Details

The Committee on Budgetary Control adopted the joint own-initiative report by Inés AYALA SENDER (S&D, ES) and Martina DLABAJOVÁ (ALDE, CZ) on cost effectiveness of the 7th Research Programme.

The report recalled that although the multiannual financial framework (MFF) 2007-2013 has come to an end, the implementation of the Seventh Framework Programme for research and innovation (FP7) is still ongoing. Research and innovation projects during the MFF 2014-2020 fall under the Horizon 2020 regulation. Members noted that no comprehensive cost effectiveness analysis exists concerning FP7 and that one should have preceded the entry into force of Horizon 2020.

FP7 : FP7 represented a total voted budget of EUR 55 billion, accounting for an estimated 3 % of total research and technological development (RTD) expenditure in Europe, or 25 % of competitive funding.

Although considered to be a success, weaknesses were highlighted such as: (i) high administrative burden and cumbersome legal and financial rules, (ii) insufficient focus on industry participation and societal impact, (iii) weak communication.

Members are concerned that FP7 will not be fully executed and evaluated before 2020, which could cause delays in future follow-up programmes. The Commission is urged to publish an evaluation report as soon as possible and at the latest before it presents the post-Horizon-2020 research programme.

The Court of Auditors expressed concerns about the high level of error regarding research, development and innovation (RDI).

Cost effectiveness under FP7 : Members stressed that cost effectiveness should be measured against economy, efficiency and effectiveness (sound financial management) in achieving the policy objectives. They observed that FP7 rules were not sufficiently compatible with general business practices, the control system needed to have a better balance between risk and control, that beneficiaries needed better guidance to cope with the complexity of the scheme and that the reimbursement methods needed to be more efficient. In this regard, they expressed concern that the annual activity report of DG RTD indicated that, by the end of 2015, 1 915 FP7 projects worth EUR 1.63 billion had still not been completed, which could delay the implementation of Horizon 2020.

The Commission should ensure that FP7 and national research funding is coherent with EU rules on state aid so as to avoid inconsistencies and duplications of funding.

Members stressed the need to better target FP7 financial instruments so as to ensure that newcomers with limited access to finance in the research and innovation field are supported.

Future prospects under Horizon 2020 : by the end of 2015, 198 calls with a submission deadline by that date had been published for Horizon 2020. In response to these calls, a total of 78 268 proposals were received, 10 658 of which were put on the main or reserve list. This means a success rate of around 14 %, taking into account only the eligible proposals.

The report noted that cost savings of EUR 551 million in FP7 were made compared with FP6. The Commission also endeavoured to further simplify the implementation of Horizon 2020 compared with FP7 and DG RTD is trying to further reduce overhead costs by outsourcing contract management to executive agencies and other bodies. Under Horizon 2020, 55 % of the budget will be managed by executive agencies.

Under Horizon 2020 :

the programme structure is less complex and provides for interoperability among different parts, a single set of rules now applies, there is now one funding rate per project, indirect costs are covered by a flat rate (25 %), only the financial viability of project coordinators is checked, a single participant portal was created for managing grants and experts, grants, expert contracts and archiving are managed electronically.

Members welcomed the creation of a Common Support Centre (CSC), which will help to coordinate and deliver the programme in an efficient and harmonised manner. The role for the National Contact Points (NCP) should be increased in order to provide quality technical support on the ground. Annual assessment of results, training and rewarding NCPs that perform effectively will increase the success rate of the Horizon 2020 programme.

The share of Horizon 2020 funds allocated to small and medium sized enterprises increased from 19.4 % in 2014 to 23.4 % in 2015 and Members recommended that this trend be encouraged.

Members underlined the need to ensure that Horizon 2020's best practices are used in defining the programme. They suggested more funding for innovation and increasing flexibility between budgets of the different sub-programmes so as to avoid a lack of funding for those qualified as ‘excellent’.

Lastly, Member States are called on to make an extra effort to meet the target of 3 % of GDP being invested in research considering that this would boost excellence and innovation. Members called on the Commission to examine the possibility of proposing a Science Covenant at local, regional and national level, building on the dynamic already created by the Covenant of Mayors.

Documents
2017/05/03
   EP - Vote in committee
2017/04/04
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2017/01/20
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2016/01/22
   EP - AYALA SENDER Inés (S&D) appointed as rapporteur in CONT
2016/01/22
   EP - DLABAJOVÁ Martina (ALDE) appointed as rapporteur in CONT
2015/11/26
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament

Documents

Votes

A8-0194/2017 - Martina Dlabajová et Inés Ayala Sender - Vote unique #

2017/06/13 Outcome: +: 573, -: 28, 0: 18
DE IT FR ES PL RO GB CZ PT HU BE AT SE BG NL DK SK IE HR LT FI LV LU EE SI EL CY MT ??
Total
85
60
55
48
44
28
51
20
20
18
18
16
17
14
15
11
10
9
9
8
8
7
6
6
6
18
5
5
1
icon: PPE PPE
186

Sweden PPE

For (1)

1

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Finland PPE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE

3

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Cyprus PPE

1

Malta PPE

2
icon: S&D S&D
165

Netherlands S&D

For (1)

1

Ireland S&D

For (1)

1

Croatia S&D

For (1)

1

Lithuania S&D

1

Finland S&D

1

Latvia S&D

1

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Slovenia S&D

For (1)

1

Cyprus S&D

For (1)

1

Malta S&D

3
icon: ALDE ALDE
56

Romania ALDE

3

United Kingdom ALDE

1

Portugal ALDE

1

Austria ALDE

For (1)

1

Denmark ALDE

For (1)

1

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Croatia ALDE

For (1)

1
2
3

Latvia ALDE

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

3

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
58

Italy ECR

2

Czechia ECR

2

Bulgaria ECR

1

Netherlands ECR

2

Slovakia ECR

For (1)

1

Croatia ECR

For (1)

1

Finland ECR

1

Latvia ECR

For (1)

1

Greece ECR

Against (1)

1

Cyprus ECR

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
41

Italy Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

France Verts/ALE

4

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

4

Hungary Verts/ALE

1

Austria Verts/ALE

3

Netherlands Verts/ALE

2

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Croatia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Lithuania Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
41

Germany GUE/NGL

Abstain (2)

5

Italy GUE/NGL

2

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Czechia GUE/NGL

2

Portugal GUE/NGL

For (1)

3

Sweden GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

3

Denmark GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Ireland GUE/NGL

3

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2
icon: ENF ENF
23

Poland ENF

2

United Kingdom ENF

Against (1)

1

Belgium ENF

Abstain (1)

1
icon: EFDD EFDD
33

Germany EFDD

Against (1)

1

France EFDD

1

Poland EFDD

1

Czechia EFDD

Abstain (1)

1

Sweden EFDD

2

Lithuania EFDD

For (1)

1
icon: NI NI
15

Germany NI

For (1)

Against (1)

2

France NI

2

United Kingdom NI

For (1)

Against (2)

3
AmendmentsDossier
64 2015/2318(INI)
2017/04/04 CONT 64 amendments...
source: 602.929

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)

events/3/docs
  • url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CRE-8-2017-06-12-TOC_EN.html title: Debate in Parliament
committees/0/shadows/2
name
OMARJEE Younous
group
European United Left - Nordic Green Left
abbr
GUE/NGL
docs/0/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE597.439
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CONT-PR-597439_EN.html
docs/1/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE602.929
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CONT-AM-602929_EN.html
events/0/type
Old
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
New
Committee referral announced in Parliament
events/1/type
Old
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
New
Vote in committee
events/2
date
2017-05-10T00:00:00
type
Committee report tabled for plenary
body
EP
docs
url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2017-0194_EN.html title: A8-0194/2017
summary
events/2
date
2017-05-10T00:00:00
type
Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
body
EP
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2017-0194_EN.html title: A8-0194/2017
summary
events/3/docs
  • url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20170612&type=CRE title: Debate in Parliament
events/5
date
2017-06-13T00:00:00
type
Decision by Parliament
body
EP
docs
url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2017-0246_EN.html title: T8-0246/2017
summary
events/5
date
2017-06-13T00:00:00
type
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
body
EP
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2017-0246_EN.html title: T8-0246/2017
summary
procedure/Modified legal basis
Rules of Procedure EP 159
procedure/Other legal basis
Rules of Procedure EP 159
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Budgetary Control
committee
CONT
rapporteur
shadows
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Budgetary Control
committee
CONT
date
rapporteur
shadows
docs/2/body
EC
events/2/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2017-0194&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2017-0194_EN.html
events/5/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2017-0246
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2017-0246_EN.html
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Budgetary Control
committee
CONT
date
rapporteur
shadows
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Budgetary Control
committee
CONT
date
rapporteur
shadows
activities
  • date: 2015-11-26T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP shadows: group: EPP name: NOVAKOV Andrey group: ALDE name: THEURER Michael group: GUE/NGL name: OMARJEE Younous group: Verts/ALE name: TARAND Indrek group: EFD name: VALLI Marco responsible: True committee: CONT date: 2016-01-22T00:00:00 2016-01-22T00:00:00 committee_full: Budgetary Control rapporteur: group: S&D name: AYALA SENDER Inés group: ALDE name: DLABAJOVÁ Martina body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Industry, Research and Energy committee: ITRE
  • date: 2017-05-03T00:00:00 body: EP type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP shadows: group: EPP name: NOVAKOV Andrey group: ALDE name: THEURER Michael group: GUE/NGL name: OMARJEE Younous group: Verts/ALE name: TARAND Indrek group: EFD name: VALLI Marco responsible: True committee: CONT date: 2016-01-22T00:00:00 2016-01-22T00:00:00 committee_full: Budgetary Control rapporteur: group: S&D name: AYALA SENDER Inés group: ALDE name: DLABAJOVÁ Martina body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Industry, Research and Energy committee: ITRE
  • date: 2017-05-10T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2017-0194&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A8-0194/2017 body: EP type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
  • date: 2017-06-12T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20170612&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2017-06-13T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2017-0246 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T8-0246/2017 body: EP type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
commission
  • body: EC dg: Research and Innovation commissioner: MOEDAS Carlos
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Budgetary Control
committee
CONT
date
rapporteur
shadows
committees/0
body
EP
shadows
responsible
True
committee
CONT
date
committee_full
Budgetary Control
rapporteur
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Industry, Research and Energy
committee
ITRE
opinion
False
committees/1
body
EP
responsible
False
committee_full
Industry, Research and Energy
committee
ITRE
docs
  • date: 2017-01-20T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE597.439 title: PE597.439 type: Committee draft report body: EP
  • date: 2017-04-04T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE602.929 title: PE602.929 type: Amendments tabled in committee body: EP
  • date: 2017-11-20T00:00:00 docs: url: /oeil/spdoc.do?i=29763&j=0&l=en title: SP(2017)574 type: Commission response to text adopted in plenary
events
  • date: 2015-11-26T00:00:00 type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2017-05-03T00:00:00 type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2017-05-10T00:00:00 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2017-0194&language=EN title: A8-0194/2017 summary: The Committee on Budgetary Control adopted the joint own-initiative report by Inés AYALA SENDER (S&D, ES) and Martina DLABAJOVÁ (ALDE, CZ) on cost effectiveness of the 7th Research Programme. The report recalled that although the multiannual financial framework (MFF) 2007-2013 has come to an end, the implementation of the Seventh Framework Programme for research and innovation (FP7) is still ongoing. Research and innovation projects during the MFF 2014-2020 fall under the Horizon 2020 regulation. Members noted that no comprehensive cost effectiveness analysis exists concerning FP7 and that one should have preceded the entry into force of Horizon 2020. FP7 : FP7 represented a total voted budget of EUR 55 billion, accounting for an estimated 3 % of total research and technological development (RTD) expenditure in Europe, or 25 % of competitive funding. Although considered to be a success, weaknesses were highlighted such as: (i) high administrative burden and cumbersome legal and financial rules, (ii) insufficient focus on industry participation and societal impact, (iii) weak communication. Members are concerned that FP7 will not be fully executed and evaluated before 2020, which could cause delays in future follow-up programmes. The Commission is urged to publish an evaluation report as soon as possible and at the latest before it presents the post-Horizon-2020 research programme. The Court of Auditors expressed concerns about the high level of error regarding research, development and innovation (RDI). Cost effectiveness under FP7 : Members stressed that cost effectiveness should be measured against economy, efficiency and effectiveness (sound financial management) in achieving the policy objectives. They observed that FP7 rules were not sufficiently compatible with general business practices, the control system needed to have a better balance between risk and control, that beneficiaries needed better guidance to cope with the complexity of the scheme and that the reimbursement methods needed to be more efficient. In this regard, they expressed concern that the annual activity report of DG RTD indicated that, by the end of 2015, 1 915 FP7 projects worth EUR 1.63 billion had still not been completed, which could delay the implementation of Horizon 2020. The Commission should ensure that FP7 and national research funding is coherent with EU rules on state aid so as to avoid inconsistencies and duplications of funding. Members stressed the need to better target FP7 financial instruments so as to ensure that newcomers with limited access to finance in the research and innovation field are supported. Future prospects under Horizon 2020 : by the end of 2015, 198 calls with a submission deadline by that date had been published for Horizon 2020. In response to these calls, a total of 78 268 proposals were received, 10 658 of which were put on the main or reserve list. This means a success rate of around 14 %, taking into account only the eligible proposals. The report noted that cost savings of EUR 551 million in FP7 were made compared with FP6. The Commission also endeavoured to further simplify the implementation of Horizon 2020 compared with FP7 and DG RTD is trying to further reduce overhead costs by outsourcing contract management to executive agencies and other bodies. Under Horizon 2020, 55 % of the budget will be managed by executive agencies. Under Horizon 2020 : the programme structure is less complex and provides for interoperability among different parts, a single set of rules now applies, there is now one funding rate per project, indirect costs are covered by a flat rate (25 %), only the financial viability of project coordinators is checked, a single participant portal was created for managing grants and experts, grants, expert contracts and archiving are managed electronically. Members welcomed the creation of a Common Support Centre (CSC), which will help to coordinate and deliver the programme in an efficient and harmonised manner. The role for the National Contact Points (NCP) should be increased in order to provide quality technical support on the ground. Annual assessment of results, training and rewarding NCPs that perform effectively will increase the success rate of the Horizon 2020 programme. The share of Horizon 2020 funds allocated to small and medium sized enterprises increased from 19.4 % in 2014 to 23.4 % in 2015 and Members recommended that this trend be encouraged. Members underlined the need to ensure that Horizon 2020's best practices are used in defining the programme. They suggested more funding for innovation and increasing flexibility between budgets of the different sub-programmes so as to avoid a lack of funding for those qualified as ‘excellent’. Lastly, Member States are called on to make an extra effort to meet the target of 3 % of GDP being invested in research considering that this would boost excellence and innovation. Members called on the Commission to examine the possibility of proposing a Science Covenant at local, regional and national level, building on the dynamic already created by the Covenant of Mayors.
  • date: 2017-06-12T00:00:00 type: Debate in Parliament body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20170612&type=CRE title: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2017-06-13T00:00:00 type: Results of vote in Parliament body: EP docs: url: https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=29763&l=en title: Results of vote in Parliament
  • date: 2017-06-13T00:00:00 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2017-0246 title: T8-0246/2017 summary: The European Parliament adopted by 573 votes to 28, with 18 abstentions, a resolution on cost effectiveness of the 7th Research Programme. Members recalled that although the multiannual financial framework (MFF) 2007-2013 has come to an end, the implementation of the Seventh Framework Programme for research and innovation (FP7) is still ongoing. However, no comprehensive cost effectiveness analysis exists concerning FP7. FP7 : FP7 represented a total voted budget of EUR 55 billion , accounting for an estimated 3 % of total research and technological development (RTD) expenditure in Europe, or 25 % of competitive funding. The main recipients among the 29 000 organisations participating in FP7 were, inter alia, universities (44 % of FP7 funding), research and technology organisations (27 %), large private companies (11 %) and SMEs (13 %), while the public sector (3 %) and civil society organisations (2 %) represented a less significant share. Although considered to be a success, weaknesses were highlighted such as: (i) high administrative burden and cumbersome legal and financial rules, (ii) insufficient focus on industry participation and societal impact, (iii) high threshold for newcomers; low average success rate for proposals and applicants. Members are concerned that FP7 will not be fully executed and evaluated before 2020, which could cause delays in future follow-up programmes. The Commission is urged to publish an evaluation report as soon as possible and at the latest before it presents the post-Horizon-2020 research programme. The Court of Auditors expressed concerns about the high level of error regarding research, development and innovation (RDI). In 2015, of the 150 transactions that the Court audited, 72 (48 %) were affected by error. Cost effectiveness under FP7 : Members stressed that cost effectiveness should be measured against economy, efficiency and effectiveness (sound financial management) in achieving the policy objectives. They observed that: FP7 rules were not sufficiently compatible with general business practices; the control system needed to have a better balance between risk and control; beneficiaries needed better guidance to cope with the complexity of the scheme; the reimbursement methods needed to be more efficient. In this regard, Parliament expressed concern that the annual activity report of DG RTD indicated that, by the end of 2015, 1 915 FP7 projects worth EUR 1.63 billion had still not been completed , which could delay the implementation of Horizon 2020. Members insisted on the need to: ensure that FP7 and national research funding is coherent with EU rules on state aid so as to avoid inconsistencies and duplications of funding; better target FP7 financial instruments so as to ensure that newcomers with limited access to finance in the research and innovation field are supported. Future prospects under Horizon 2020 : by the end of 2015, 198 calls with a submission deadline by that date had been published for Horizon 2020. In response to these calls, a total of 78 268 proposals were received, 10 658 of which were put on the main or reserve list. This means a success rate of around 14 %, taking into account only the eligible proposals. The report noted that cost savings of EUR 551 million in FP7 were made compared with FP6. The Commission also endeavoured to further simplify the implementation of Horizon 2020 compared with FP7 and DG RTD is trying to further reduce overhead costs by outsourcing contract management to executive agencies and other bodies. Under Horizon 2020, 55 % of the budget will be managed by executive agencies. Parliament concluded that the Commission – overall – managed the FP7 cost effectively and that the programme also improved its efficiency despite the delays and repeated error rates in its implementation. It welcomed the fact that under Horizon 2020: the programme structure is less complex; a single set of rules now applies; there is now one funding rate per project; indirect costs are covered by a flat rate (25 %); only the financial viability of project coordinators is checked; a single participant portal was created for managing grants and experts; grants, expert contracts and archiving are managed electronically. Members welcomed the creation of a Common Support Centre (CSC), which will help to coordinate and deliver the programme in an efficient and harmonised manner. The role for the National Contact Points (NCP) should be increased in order to provide quality technical support on the ground. Annual assessment of results, training and rewarding NCPs that perform effectively will increase the success rate of the Horizon 2020 programme. The share of Horizon 2020 funds allocated to small and medium sized enterprises increased from 19.4 % in 2014 to 23.4 % in 2015 and Members recommended that this trend be encouraged. Members underlined the need to ensure that Horizon 2020's best practices are used in defining the programme. They suggested more funding for innovation and increasing flexibility between budgets of the different sub-programmes so as to avoid a lack of funding for those qualified as ‘excellent’. Lastly, Member States are called on to make an extra effort to meet the target of 3 % of GDP being invested in research considering that this would boost excellence and innovation. Members called on the Commission to examine the possibility of proposing a Science Covenant at local, regional and national level, building on the dynamic already created by the Covenant of Mayors.
  • date: 2017-06-13T00:00:00 type: End of procedure in Parliament body: EP
links
other
  • body: EC dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/info/departments/research-and-innovation_en title: Research and Innovation commissioner: MOEDAS Carlos
procedure/Modified legal basis
Old
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150
New
Rules of Procedure EP 159
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee
Old
CONT/8/05051
New
  • CONT/8/05051
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure EP 54
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
procedure/subject
Old
  • 3.50.02 Framework programme and research programmes
  • 8.70.03 Budgetary control and discharge, implementation of the budget
New
3.50.02
Framework programme and research programmes
8.70.03
Budgetary control and discharge, implementation of the budget
activities/3/docs
  • url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20170612&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament
activities/3/type
Old
Debate in plenary scheduled
New
Debate in Parliament
activities/4/docs
  • url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2017-0246 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T8-0246/2017
activities/4/type
Old
Vote in plenary scheduled
New
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
procedure/stage_reached
Old
Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage
New
Procedure completed
activities/2/docs/0/text
  • The Committee on Budgetary Control adopted the joint own-initiative report by Inés AYALA SENDER (S&D, ES) and Martina DLABAJOVÁ (ALDE, CZ) on cost effectiveness of the 7th Research Programme.

    The report recalled that although the multiannual financial framework (MFF) 2007-2013 has come to an end, the implementation of the Seventh Framework Programme for research and innovation (FP7) is still ongoing. Research and innovation projects during the MFF 2014-2020 fall under the Horizon 2020 regulation. Members noted that no comprehensive cost effectiveness analysis exists concerning FP7 and that one should have preceded the entry into force of Horizon 2020.

    FP7: FP7 represented a total voted budget of EUR 55 billion, accounting for an estimated 3 % of total research and technological development (RTD) expenditure in Europe, or 25 % of competitive funding.

    Although considered to be a success, weaknesses were highlighted such as: (i) high administrative burden and cumbersome legal and financial rules, (ii) insufficient focus on industry participation and societal impact, (iii) weak communication.

    Members are concerned that FP7 will not be fully executed and evaluated before 2020, which could cause delays in future follow-up programmes. The Commission is urged to publish an evaluation report as soon as possible and at the latest before it presents the post-Horizon-2020 research programme.

    The Court of Auditors expressed concerns about the high level of error regarding research, development and innovation (RDI).

    Cost effectiveness under FP7: Members stressed that cost effectiveness should be measured against economy, efficiency and effectiveness (sound financial management) in achieving the policy objectives. They observed that FP7 rules were not sufficiently compatible with general business practices, the control system needed to have a better balance between risk and control, that beneficiaries needed better guidance to cope with the complexity of the scheme and that the reimbursement methods needed to be more efficient. In this regard, they expressed concern that the annual activity report of DG RTD indicated that, by the end of 2015, 1 915 FP7 projects worth EUR 1.63 billion had still not been completed, which could delay the implementation of Horizon 2020.

    The Commission should ensure that FP7 and national research funding is coherent with EU rules on state aid so as to avoid inconsistencies and duplications of funding.

    Members stressed the need to better target FP7 financial instruments so as to ensure that newcomers with limited access to finance in the research and innovation field are supported.

    Future prospects under Horizon 2020: by the end of 2015, 198 calls with a submission deadline by that date had been published for Horizon 2020. In response to these calls, a total of 78 268 proposals were received, 10 658 of which were put on the main or reserve list. This means a success rate of around 14 %, taking into account only the eligible proposals.

    The report noted that cost savings of EUR 551 million in FP7 were made compared with FP6. The Commission also endeavoured to further simplify the implementation of Horizon 2020 compared with FP7 and DG RTD is trying to further reduce overhead costs by outsourcing contract management to executive agencies and other bodies. Under Horizon 2020, 55 % of the budget will be managed by executive agencies.

    Under Horizon 2020:

    • the programme structure is less complex and provides for interoperability among different parts,
    • a single set of rules now applies,
    • there is now one funding rate per project,
    • indirect costs are covered by a flat rate (25 %),
    • only the financial viability of project coordinators is checked,
    • a single participant portal was created for managing grants and experts,
    • grants, expert contracts and archiving are managed electronically.

    Members welcomed the creation of a Common Support Centre (CSC), which will help to coordinate and deliver the programme in an efficient and harmonised manner. The role for the National Contact Points (NCP) should be increased in order to provide quality technical support on the ground. Annual assessment of results, training and rewarding NCPs that perform effectively will increase the success rate of the Horizon 2020 programme.

    The share of Horizon 2020 funds allocated to small and medium sized enterprises increased from 19.4 % in 2014 to 23.4 % in 2015 and Members recommended that this trend be encouraged.

    Members underlined the need to ensure that Horizon 2020's best practices are used in defining the programme. They suggested more funding for innovation and increasing flexibility between budgets of the different sub-programmes so as to avoid a lack of funding for those qualified as ‘excellent’.

    Lastly, Member States are called on to make an extra effort to meet the target of 3 % of GDP being invested in research considering that this would boost excellence and innovation. Members called on the Commission to examine the possibility of proposing a Science Covenant at local, regional and national level, building on the dynamic already created by the Covenant of Mayors.

activities/2/docs
  • url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2017-0194&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A8-0194/2017
activities/3/type
Old
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading
New
Debate in plenary scheduled
activities/4
date
2017-06-13T00:00:00
body
EP
type
Vote in plenary scheduled
activities/2
date
2017-05-10T00:00:00
body
EP
type
Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
procedure/stage_reached
Old
Awaiting committee decision
New
Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage
activities/1
date
2017-05-03T00:00:00
body
EP
type
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
committees
procedure/Modified legal basis
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150
activities/1
date
2017-05-03T00:00:00
body
EP
type
Vote scheduled in committee, 1st reading/single reading
activities/2
date
2017-06-12T00:00:00
body
EP
type
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading
activities/1
date
2017-05-03T00:00:00
body
EP
type
Vote scheduled in committee, 1st reading/single reading
other/0/dg/url
Old
http://ec.europa.eu/research/home.cfm
New
http://ec.europa.eu/info/departments/research-and-innovation_en
activities/0/committees/0/shadows/2
group
GUE/NGL
name
OMARJEE Younous
activities/0/committees/0/shadows/3
group
Verts/ALE
name
TARAND Indrek
committees/0/shadows/2
group
GUE/NGL
name
OMARJEE Younous
committees/0/shadows/3
group
Verts/ALE
name
TARAND Indrek
activities/0/committees/0/date
  • 2016-01-22T00:00:00
  • 2016-01-22T00:00:00
activities/0/committees/0/rapporteur
  • group: S&D name: AYALA SENDER Inés
  • group: ALDE name: DLABAJOVÁ Martina
committees/0/date
  • 2016-01-22T00:00:00
  • 2016-01-22T00:00:00
committees/0/rapporteur
  • group: S&D name: AYALA SENDER Inés
  • group: ALDE name: DLABAJOVÁ Martina
activities/0/committees/0/shadows
  • group: EPP name: NOVAKOV Andrey
  • group: ALDE name: THEURER Michael
  • group: EFD name: VALLI Marco
committees/0/shadows
  • group: EPP name: NOVAKOV Andrey
  • group: ALDE name: THEURER Michael
  • group: EFD name: VALLI Marco
activities/0
date
2015-11-26T00:00:00
body
EP
type
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
committees
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee
CONT/8/05051
procedure/stage_reached
Old
Preparatory phase in Parliament
New
Awaiting committee decision
activities
    committees
    • body: EP responsible: True committee_full: Budgetary Control committee: CONT
    • body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Industry, Research and Energy committee: ITRE
    links
    other
    • body: EC dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/research/home.cfm title: Research and Innovation commissioner: MOEDAS Carlos
    procedure
    reference
    2015/2318(INI)
    title
    Cost effectiveness of the 7th Research Programme
    legal_basis
    Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
    stage_reached
    Preparatory phase in Parliament
    subtype
    Initiative
    type
    INI - Own-initiative procedure
    subject