Experiences and tools
Title:
Topic:
1.
Practices for fostering higher participation in
EU research funding programmes
2.
Upgrading the system of Research and
Innovation
Project top-up funding
1.
Practices for fostering higher participation in EU research funding programmes
Country:
Project top-up funding instruments have been used in several EU countries, such as Austria or
Hungary in order to reduce the funding gap, because in previous FPs the EC did not pay 100% of the costs.
Geographic level (regional or national)
National
Organisation (Please include here the name and some background information).
What were the aims of the experience/tool?
Austria: (former) Austrian Federal Ministry of
Science and Research
Hungary: National Office for Research and
Technology (NKTH)
Austria: The aim of the Austrian Federal Ministry of Science and Research (BMWF) was to support financially Austrian participants selected for a
FP7 project through national co-funding. Top-up funding was eligible for all FP7 sub-programmes except activities concerning the networking of national programmes (e.g. Art.169, Art. 171,
ERA-Net and ERA-NET plus). The FP7 Top-up
Project Funding scheme in Austria was terminated in order to reduce public spending in the aftermath of the economic crises. A small fraction was still operative for social scientific institutes which did not receive any institutional funding from the Ministry.
Hungary: The aim of the BONUS-HU Grant (the
Hungarian EU-top-up funding scheme) was to give supplementary funding for Hungarian higher education institutes, public financed research
WP3: Mirroring experiences – Collection of intervention modalities and support programmes

In which part of the decision tree is the experience (see image at the end of the document)
Who were the beneficiaries or the target group? institutes, non-profit organizations and SMEs which have successfully competed for collaborative research projects in the FP.
Within the decision tree, this measure facilitated the implementation of FP projects selected for funding by contributing financially to the funding gap (in case that not all project costs were financed by the EC, which was the usual case prior to Horizon 2020).
Austria: The following types of organisations were eligible for funding:
•
Universities
•
Universities of Applied Sciences
• Non-university research institutions which fell under the thematic responsibility of the (former) Austrian Ministry of Science and Research (for instance which are not core funded by other ministries)
• individual researchers
Hungary: Those Hungarian based SMEs, public financed research institutes, higher education institutes, non-profit organisations could apply that have had an ongoing collaborative research project financed by the FP. There were restrictions on financial grounds (e.g. when a company was declared insolvent, bankrupt, or if it had an uncovered financial obligation toward
NKTH etc.).
Description of the experience of using the best practice: (Describe the operating experience with particular focus on the evolution of its development, end user experience).
Austria: Top-up Project Funding was in practice automatically granted for eligible FP7 projects funded by the EC. The financial and administrative implementation was executed by the Ministry’s financial department.
The top-up funding application had to be sent to
BMWF before the FP7 project’s end.
The top-up funding was released after acceptance by the European Commission of all claimed costs for the given FP7 project period by filling in the relevant form and providing all justifications (lists of invoices, receipts,…).
WP3: Mirroring experiences – Collection of intervention modalities and support programmes

The Austrian Federal Ministry of Science and
Research required from selected organisations to be funded:
•
A final report.
•
A costs overview to be listed in the relevant BMWF form.
•
Accepted financial statements for the given period for BMWF funding and also corrected forms from the European
Commission.
•
EC Certificate on the financial statements
(when required)
•
EC payments (Bank statements copies to be provided).
•
If the project was extended, an acceptance from EC side had to be provided.
•
Information about other co-financing means along with their amount(s) as for instance from local, regional or national
Institutions.
•
Gender impact assessment
Hungary: Applications were not evaluated in
Hungary. Those who have successfully applied for a FP7 grant automatically got the Hungarian supplementary funding (until the budget of
BONUS-HU programme expired).
Small enterprises were co-funded up to 80%, medium enterprises up to 75%; public financed research institutions, non-profit organisations, higher education institutes were co-funded up to 85%, in case they were coordinators they were co-funded up to 90%.
What is the period during which the experience/tool has been carried out?
This instrument was used during the 6 first years of the 7
Programme. th and the th European Framework
What were the results of this best practice?
(Please
In Austria and Hungary, FP-top-up funding increased the readiness of applicants to engage
WP3: Mirroring experiences – Collection of intervention modalities and support programmes

provide any charts, data, statistics, etc. showing the results of the implementation).
What is needed for the experience/tool to be successfully replicated?
Please include any references or bibliography here: themselves in FP projects. The instrument strengthened the participation and quality of researchers in FP.
• Sufficient budget availability (Austria 3m for instance in the year 2007 only; in
Hungary around 3.6 billion HUF were earmarked in the period 2008-2013; i.e. approximately 2.4 million €/year)
•
Participation rules (especially formal, selection and assessment criteria) and procedures have to be clear and userfriendly
•
Precautions to avoid double funding
(especially for public research organisations, which are basically funded, e.g. through high GUF appropriations) should be foreseen. The European subsidy regulations need to be respected.
•
The administrative effort should be kept low for all involved parties.
•
Re-evaluation for top-up funding of already evaluated FP7 proposals should be omitted.
The evaluation of the Austrian Support
Structures for FP 7 & Eureka and Impact Analysis of EU Research Initiatives on the Austrian
Research & Innovation System can be accessed under http://www.fteval.at/de/evaluation_studies/all/2010/565/
WP3: Mirroring experiences – Collection of intervention modalities and support programmes