On 7 June 2023, UKRO held its latest European Liaison Officer (ELO) catch-up. The event included a plenary session with UKRO and the UKRI team responsible for the delivery of the Horizon Europe Guarantee as well as discussions in groups for ELOs.
Session 1 – UKRO updates and the UKRI Guarantee
In the introductory presentation, UKRO shared the findings from a recent MSCA Focus Group and presented the latest figures on the UK success rates in Horizon Europe (HE); the current overall success rate is 19.4%.
UKRI colleagues provided an update on the status of the Guarantee – which since the event took place has been extended until the end of September this year – and the planned procedural and operational changes to its delivery going forward. The speakers answered participants’ questions and gathered feedback on concerns related to the implementation of the scheme, together with suggestions for improving the perception of the Guarantee for the prestigious ERC awards.
The main messages are:
- There is no update on the Horizon Europe association negotiations. Discussions between the EU and the UK are ongoing and it was stressed that both sides are keen to finalise association – on fair and appropriate terms – within the next few months
- The scope of the Guarantee has been extended with regard to ERC portability. Any “live” ERC grant with no cost yet incurred can be moved to the UK. Should a project start date need to be delayed, or if any other deadlines need to change to allow for this, then the UKRI Guarantee helpdesk should be contacted.
- “Sub-awards” in the ERC projects (e.g. PhD or postdoc positions) do not need to be approved by UKRI. However, projects can let the UKRI team know if they want to have these reflected on the system.
- UKRI is also working with DSIT to propose further improvements for ongoing projects, such as allowing changes in UK workshare (increasing the UKRI funding) and funding transfers of “live” projects to the UK. UKRO will inform subscribers if any such changes are approved.
- The Guarantee guidance is updated regularly following feedback sessions but UKRI is aware that there is still a need to make changes, especially regarding ERC and MSC Actions. Furthermore, the UKRI Guarantee statistics are updated every month.
With respect to the implementation of the Guarantee via the Innovate UK Innovation Funding Service (IFS), the speaker highlighted that the team are trying to keep it straightforward and indicated three main changes, of which two are in place, and the third one is imminent:
1. Changed approach to the Independent Accountant’s Reports (IAR)
Costs of IAR are eligible under the Guarantee even for projects that initially had not envisaged a budget for HE Certificate on the Financial Statements (CFS). In such cases, an additional payment from UKRI will be possible at the end of the project, subject to a cap of 5% of the total grant.
2. Removal of Monitoring Officers
For projects hosted at HEIs, charities, and public sector bodies, the Monitoring Officers have been removed. Communication is done directly with Innovate UK and technical reporting is less laborious.
3. Extension of the financial reports reconciliation period (new)
Grant holders will no longer need to upload financial evidence to the IFS every quarter. They will be able to request quarterly payments by introducing the overall amount on the system. Financial documents for all costs incurred will only be required every fourth quarter. The reconciliation of costs will therefore be done every twelve months. The speaker clarified that:
- Technically, it will still be possible to upload documents every quarter, but the IFS team will only be checking all the evidence for the entire year at after the fourth quarter. All documents must be uploaded; there is no scope for exceptions at the moment (e.g. “sample of costs”/”costs summary” are not acceptable).
- The IAR’s value threshold remains unchanged, but the IAR will move to Q4.
- This change does not concern projects implemented via the Je-S.
- The Guarantee IFS guidance will be updated accordingly very soon.
Session two – breakout discussions on grant implementation
The second part of the event allowed subscribers to exchange experiences and best practices around the three topics of their choice. The main points reported by the participants are as follows:
UK HE Guarantee IFS financial reporting (focus on non-personnel costs)
- The removal of Monitoring Officers and the announced change from quarterly to annual reporting in the IFS is welcomed but the requirement to submit all financial documents via IFS continues to be regarded as burdensome. Participants would like to see a more flexible approach, potentially including spending “thresholds” or “sampling” – which is the norm on EU audits – instead all having to submit all invoices.
- In general, the groups felt that communication with the IFS teams had improved over time and that staff knowledge has increased. There is still some inconsistency when it comes to the approach of individual project monitoring officers, for instance regarding the required documents.
- Another area of concern is the difference in approach to the “period of incurred expenditure” under the Guarantee and HE. To claim costs under the Guarantee, they must be paid. The HE rules state that the cost is allowed as soon as the debt exists (an invoice is issued) even if payments are made at a later stage.
- Further guidance on reporting and eligibility of costs was requested. UKRO understands that projects should continue to follow HE cost rules.
Personnel costs in Horizon Europe and the UK HE Guarantee
- In general, there was a very positive reaction to the change from quarterly to annual reporting in IFS. However, the annual reporting does not address the issue that quarterly claims do not always align with term dates/employment periods at UK universities. The 100% reporting requirement, which is not synchronised with the 18-month reporting periods in HE means significant additional workload for UK participants, especially those with large numbers of grants.
- The groups flagged that they are struggling with understanding which UKRI and/or HE guidelines to follow when it comes to calculating personnel costs. For example, there is still some uncertainty as to how to record and document absences or sicknesses. Ideally, to address this, the community would like to see the development of personnel costs reporting guidance and templates (e.g. timesheets).
- There is also some confusion regarding the eligibility of visa costs and relocation costs on UKRI grants when compared to HE.
- A question on the possibility to use the HE “Declaration of day-equivalents” rather than timesheets was raised, as well as how to claim PhD fees under the staff costs when submitting financial claims quarterly. UKRO will provide subscribers with clarifications on these issues as soon as we receive answers from UKRI.
Horizon Europe lump sum funding – first experiences
- ELOs’ experiences with HE calls involving lump sum grants seems limited. The Commission’s resources on the dedicated website, which include webinars and guidance for applicants, are well received.
- In general, there is a perception that a wider rollout of lump sum calls will require a “rebalancing” of the project delivery capacity within institutions, as well as closer collaboration between the pre- and post-award teams. Colleagues would need more training on both lump-sum and standard actual costs calls, so overall, the delivery of HE projects may be more laborious.
- For mono-beneficiary schemes, the approach is seen as less challenging, as it makes post-award reporting simpler.
- Research support needs to work more closely with the PIs to ensure that there is a shared understanding of responsibilities within work packages (WPs).
- The EC’s focus on technical checks, rather than financial reporting, will have an impact on PIs’ responsibility. The participants shared concerns that the emphasis on WP delivery may place tensions on relationships within consortia and put additional pressure on WP leads to intervene more often than before to ensure tasks are completed on time.
- Shared responsibility for WPs may also result in smaller consortia and less ambitious milestones to manage the risk of non-delivery. The shift towards having to plan WPs in detail, in advance, may prove a barrier to the participation of organisations that need a more dynamic approach, such as SMEs.
- It was noted that if the first HE lump sum projects start before the UK associates to the programme, their implementation under the UK Guarantee will require further consideration and guidance from UKRI.
- UKRO understands that lump sum funding is of interest to subscribers and will include this topic in its future activities (articles, events). As a reminder, the Summary Report from IGLO Event on Lump Sum Funding, co-organised by UKRO last year, includes useful information for ELOs.
Acknowledgements and next steps
We would like to thank all speakers and ELOs for their active participation and for raising important issues during the meeting. All unanswered questions have been recorded and, where possible, UKRO will be providing subscribers with further guidance, either through articles or dedicated events. We hope that this summary is also helpful for those ELOs who were not able to attend.
The next catch-up will be organised after the summer.