The European Court of Auditors has published a Special Report entitled “Networks of excellence and Integrated projects in Community Research policy: did they achieve their objectives?” The report (link to full report here) provides an assessment of the Networks of Excellence (NoEs) and Integrated Projects (IPs) funded under FP6. The European Court of Auditors’ conclusions and recommendations will be of particular interest when considering the design of instruments and funding schemes for future Framework Programmes. The Special Report includes the European Commission’s response to the recommendations.

The report provides a detailed analysis of two of the instruments used to implement FP6 – the Networks of Excellence and Integrated Projects. The report presents the European Court of Auditors Recommendations for the Commission. The final section of the report gives a detailed response from the European Commission.

This article highlights some of the key issues discussed in the report and is structured around the Court of Auditors Recommendations.

Recommendation 1 -  Develop an explicit intervention logic
The report highlights that the NoEs and IPs were successful in promoting research collaboration.
The Commission is criticised for not using ‘SMART’ (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Timed) objectives to design instruments. In response, the Commission clarified that that ‘SMART’ criteria was not part of the Financial Regulations at the time of setting up FP6, but the essential elements of the ‘SMART’ approach were taken into consideration at the work programme level. In response, the Commission explains that it is very difficult to apply the ‘SMART’ logic to the instruments, but rather each project has specific objectives as set out in the work programme topics in addition to those set by the participants for the implementation of the project.
Recommendation 2 - Assess the performance of new instruments compared to traditional research collaboration
Although the Court of Auditors asks the Commission to assess the performance of the instruments, the Commission argues that the Commission supported an Expert Group to assess the Networks of Excellence and the Expert Group on the Review of FP6 analysed the implementation of FP6. Many of the conclusions reached in Court of Auditors report are similar to those reached in the Commission’s Expert Group evaluation on the Future of Networks of Excellence. For example, both the Commission’s Expert Group evaluation and the Court of Auditors report suggest that the Commission could consider further funding under FP7 for the continuation of successful projects funded using these instruments, and both evaluations conclude that this should be considered on a case by case basis – rather than an automatic option to apply for further funding.
Recommendation 3 - Examine the reasons for a low investment level
The Court of Auditors is critical that the NoEs and IPs were not that successful in leveraging funding from other sources compared to instruments in previous Framework Programmes. In its response, the Commission clarifies that there is no requirement for participants to bring in additional money as the schemes are already co-financed.
Recommendation 4 - Improve management conditions
The report criticises the Commission for not providing adequate guidance and project management. In response, the Commission agrees that clear and timely guidance and better project monitoring are important, while highlighting the difficulties of trying to distribute funding quickly while trying to ensure accountability under the current legal frameworks.

The content of this report will be of particular interest to subscribers who were involved in FP6 NoEs or IPs, as well as those who are participating in FP7 NoEs and Large Scale Collaborative Projects. It is also of interest to subscribers who are following policy developments in this area, as the conclusions of this report will be used to feed into the development of instruments and funding schemes for future Framework Programmes.