Evaluation of EFSA’s Grants and Science Procurement Schemes

In 2008, EFSA was asked by its Advisory Forum to assess cooperation with Member States under the grants and procurement schemes. In 2009, EFSA conducted an evaluation of its Article 36 grants and procurement schemes from 2007 to 2009 to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the process and procedures, and the impact of the work carried-out under Article36 and procurement to EFSA and the partner organisations. Two separate questionnaires were distributed to EFSA units involved in a grant or procurement and organisations who were awarded a grant or procurement project between 2007 to 2009. In total 192 questionnaires were distributed; 92 to EFSA units and 100 to organisations. In addition available project specific data was analysed to calculate indicators, timing descriptors, activity and resource allocation descriptors, and application and participation descriptors. In total 120 completed questionnaires were received; 66 (72% response rate) from EFSA units and 54 (54% response rate) from organisations. The results show that procurement projects have mainly been used to support the evaluation of authorisation dossiers, whereas grant projects have mainly been used for cooperation projects in the general area of risk assessment. The average budget per project was higher for grants (156,500 €) compared to procurement (60,768 €) but the average budget per partner (between 55,893 € and 53,777 €) is similar for both types of projects as a result of the higher number of organisations forming consortia and therefore sharing the funding for grants (n=3.0) than for procurement (n=1.1). A higher percentage of respondents of the grant scheme (65%), compared to the procurement scheme (48%) felt that some administrative practices could be improved. The time spent on applying to a call was considerable higher for grants (87 hrs) compared with procurement (30 hrs). Overall, the procurement procedure was viewed by organisations as simpler to complete and had less administrative burden. Cooperation and project implementation was rated positively by both EFSA staff and organisations. In conclusion, the evaluation suggests that the schemes are effective in achieving their objectives; supporting EFSA`s scientific work as well as benefiting organisations through fostering networking and further collaboration opportunities. This assessment also confirms the complementary role of the two schemes.