New freedom in FP6 rules of participation is good, but is it too much? University experts produce new opinion
'UNITE', the universities international team of experts, has produced comments on the 'rules of participation for FP6 (Sixth Framework programme)', in which it welcomes increased freedom for project participants, but calls for limitations to the freedom. UNITE consists of European university negotiators who have previously given advice, at the invitation of the European Commission, on the modalities of the framework programmes, beginning with negotiations on the Third Framework programme. The paper identifies the possibility of inconsistency if Commission project officers are given the freedom to define practical implementation rules at programme and project level. '[There is] the great advantage that CEC [Commission] officers can gear the projects/networks to the needs of both the CEC and the partners, but [there is] the severe drawback of possible inconsistent decisions for different projects and programmes, i.e. rules being applied which are not set out in any legal document; above all, there is the possibility of having the surprise of sudden changes of conditions during the lifetime of a project,' reads the paper. UNITE's advice is that the freedom of Commission project officers is 'scrutinised' and that criteria such as 'in the interest of the project' are added as a restriction. UNITE welcomes the fact that consortium partners will be able to plan, perform and use the results of their projects, according the proposals for FP6. 'In this way the participants can optimise the developments of the project in many different ways, without being restricted by EU regulations. This is good,' claims the paper. The team of experts move on to say, however, that this could create difficulties with regard to intellectual property rights (IPR) and be disadvantageous for smaller project participants such as SMEs (small and medium sized enterprises). UNITE argues that, whilst larger entities are able to 'avail themselves of their extensive knowledge in financing and IPR handling, smaller entities have to rely on external advice.' Following on from this, UNITE makes the case that if too many matters are left open for negotiation between prospective partners, this would slow down the process of forming consortia, preparing proposals, negotiating contracts and implementing projects. It would impose high costs for expert advice on SME [small and medium sized enterprises] participants and place obstacles in the way of effective collaboration between universities and industry 'while they go over and over the same ground in settling terms for every project', argue UNITE. The paper adds that with this new freedom 'big entities will play the upper hand [...] In the long run, this will prove to be a Phyrrus victory: an unbalanced consortium, where partners feel betrayed,' argue the group of experts. They add that negotiations for smaller entities wishing to participate will be 'hard and lengthy, even to the point of not delivering anything'. On financing, UNITE again praises the increased freedom given both to the consortium and Commission officers, but once again identifies possible repercussions of this autonomy. The paper questions why there are no details of allowed costing systems within the proposals. 'The idea of leaving this to the level of contracts [...] is not acceptable, as this will give rise to unclear conditions and perhaps even inconsistency,' states the paper.