Research organisations set out conditions for Horizon Europe simplification

Compliance with basic conditions would already be "simplification"

"These three cross-cutting demands can, on the one hand, be regarded as essential prerequisites for the effectiveness of any simplification measure to be introduced. On the other hand, compliance with them would itself constitute a significant simplification," says the report.

• Clarity: "If rules and documents are formulated clearly and in a coordinated manner, they leave no room for conflicting interpretations. This prevents unnecessary waste of resources for all involved due to repeated queries and responses. If regulatory gaps nevertheless occur, the timely publication of clarifying supplementary documents and/or definitive statements from the funding body would help to fill them and avoid unnecessary uncertainty and its effects."
• Reliability: "Beneficiaries require a high degree of reliability regarding the rules to align their internal processes accordingly. Coordinated and consistent documents, as well as uniform information and interpretations from all relevant departments of the funding body, including the auditors, are important for establishing a basis of trust and implementing the projects efficiently.
• Stability: "A change in the rules always entails considerable adjustment costs for the beneficiaries. The less the rules change, the fewer resources need to be expended to adapt to a changed regulatory environment. Greater regulatory stability would therefore be beneficial both within a framework programme and between successive framework programmes".

Lump sums: Doubts about making it the exclusive model

The report states that lump sum funding represents perhaps the most radical change the framework programme has undergone in the past decade. The European Commission’s proposal for the next Horizon Europe aims to make this funding model the default approach.

While participants acknowledge that lump sums could simplify the administrative implementation of projects; however, they note that this benefit does not apply equally to all project types or participants. Consequently, many expressed doubts about whether making lump sum funding the predominant or exclusive model across the entire framework programme would be appropriate.

Participants say the negative effects, among other factors, are a significantly higher administrative burden in preparing applications involving multiple partners and managing the consortium. They conclude that lump sums serve as an effective simplification tool for monobeneficiary projects and collaborative projects involving a smaller number of partners. They can also be beneficial for projects encouraging strong participation from SMEs Small and medium-sized enterprises or less-experienced beneficiaries, including entities from lower- or middle-income countries. Additionally, some participants suggested applying lump-sum funding only to specific types of costs, such as third-party contributions.

Reimbursement of actual costs

"Many participants expressed their preference for a return to straightforward reimbursement of actual personnel costs as recorded in institutional accounts, especially for public beneficiaries with transparent pay schemes. Others suggested simplifying the current daily rate calculation by using a formula based on total personnel costs and project working hours, allowing national flexibility and avoiding unnecessary rounding," the report says.

"There were also proposals to simplify mandatory time recording, such as the return of the declaration on exclusive work in the project or the acceptance of mentioning the proportion of project working time in the employment contract".

From proposal template to Grant Agreement

Liaison offices advocate reducing the administrative information required in proposal templates and focusing on content essential for evaluation. Simplification should come from:

• reducing information requirements in forms (e.g., department names, institution descriptions);
• simplifying data collection via uploads, dropdowns for admin areas, and reducing redundant information.

Standardisation is recommended for non-scientific sections (e.g., management, dissemination); they could have a predefined framework on what they should include, while scientific sections should remain flexible to accommodate the diverse nature of research topics and approaches.

It was proposed that the data from the submitted application should be transferred in full to the draft Grant Agreement. However, the participants did not support further shortening the Grant Agreement Preparation phase, as envisaged in the Commission's proposal for FP10 The next Framework Programme for Research, currently referred to as FP10 . On the contrary, many called for greater flexibility in this regard and in the deadline for the Consortium Agreement.

The Grant Agreement amendment process should be simplified

Given the nature of R&I Research & Innovation projects and their multi-year duration, adjustments to the work plan are often the rule rather than the exception. Changes to Annex 1 of the Grant Agreement (Description of the Action), such as modifications to project tasks or consortium composition, typically require an official amendment to the Grant Agreement.

The amendment process should therefore be simplified, introducing fast-track procedures for minor changes. Many participants question the need for amendments when adding, removing, or changing a third party’s contribution. They suggest abolishing such amendments altogether or requiring them only when changes exceed a certain threshold.

They also highlight the need for greater predictability and reliability in the amendment process. They called for transparent, fixed and uniform time frames to enable more efficient project implementation. These deadlines could be adjusted based on the size and significance of the amendment.

For financial audits, participants recommend raising thresholds for mandatory audits, simplifying documentation requirements, and harmonising procedures and templates. National audits should be recognised to avoid duplication of effort.

Top 10 simplification suggestions

In addition, the report highlights the top 10 simplification suggestions:

• Import all data from successful proposals to the SyGMa system (system for grant management) and just have applicants confirm it;
• Reimburse the personnel costs of public institutions;
• Give the Legal-Entity-Appointed Representative access to all proposals of the organisation;
• Introduce standard templates for non-scientific sections in the proposal;
• Involve different groups of actual practitioners when developing simplification measures and consult them regularly during implementation;
• Remove all institutional aspects from the individual application;
• Accept internal calculations and nationally recognised rates for internally invoiced goods and services,
• Keep the same Project Officer for the entire duration of the project and if not possible, forward all communication to the successor and guarantee the validity of statements made;
• Reintroduce the declaration on exclusive work for the action;
• Extend the reporting deadline to 90 days after the end of the reporting period.

---

© News Tank Academic - 2026 - French copyright law: "Infringement of copyright (...) is punishable by three years imprisonment and a €300,000 fine. Infringement consists of all forms of reproduction, display or circulation of any intellectual work, in any medium, in violation of the rights of the author."