1 / 23

Legal and Finance NCP meeting Brussels 14 October 2009

Legal and Finance NCP meeting Brussels 14 October 2009. Reporting in EU Framework Programmes Timesheets and Work Packages and an alternative version of table 3.1 Poul Petersen Legal and Finance NCP, Faroe Island. The old FP5 version of Form C. NIH version of Form C.

harva
Download Presentation

Legal and Finance NCP meeting Brussels 14 October 2009

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Legal and Finance NCP meetingBrussels 14 October 2009 Reporting in EU Framework Programmes Timesheets and Work Packages and an alternative version of table 3.1 Poul Petersen Legal and Finance NCP, Faroe Island

  2. The old FP5 version of Form C

  3. NIH version of Form C

  4. FP6 Table 4 – extremely time consuming and impossible to verify. Micromanagement should not be reintroduced in FP7

  5. Example of Micromanagement in FP7An “Estimated Indicative” is very vague – and cannot be verified at a later stage. This column is not part of the normal evaluation process. This column has no practical use and should be deleted.

  6. First version of Table 3.1

  7. Second version of Table 3.1 Not possible to distinguish Personnel costs for RTD, Management and Dissemination. Not possible to reconcile with Requested contribution in Form C

  8. Compared to Table 3.1, the Form C does not have a line called “Total Direct Costs”

  9. A good activity based timesheet, but hard to combine with Staff Effort Table. Most scientist work in several RTD Work Packages.

  10. Lessons learned from first reporting in FP7 In FP7 Timesheets and “Explanation of the use of resources” have to be clearly separated in: RTD activities Management activities Dissemination activities

  11. Lessons learned from first reporting in FP7 (2) Updated Reporting Forms An alternative version of Table 3.1 “Explanation of the use of resources”

  12. Alternative Table 3.1 – Explanation of the use of resources FP7 Cost Statement Template Example Collaborative Project Project Acronym: SuperProject EC contract number: 12345 Reporting period: 01.01.08 – 31.12.08 Partner name: University of Copenhagen Partner number: 1 Indirect Cost Model: Specific Transitional Flat Rate of 60% * Audit Certficate Possible to reconcile with Form C

  13. Summary • The European Commission is not the only provider of external financing – there are many others • Each external provider have their own rules for financial reporting – this is extremely time consuming for the accounting department

  14. Summary (2) • Scientist are obliged to spend their grants in a responsible way – it is taxpayers money Scientists should focus on doing good science. Therefore, unnecessary micromanagement should be avoided • Scientist should be evaluated on their scientific progress – not on their accounting systems

  15. Summary (3) • Time recording can be based on Activities or on Work Packages – but not on both • Keep the reporting simple – even a scientist should understand it

  16. Thank you for your attention

More Related