Implementation of GAPs

In order to check the implementation of the GAPs, the completed GAP Interim Implementation Reports (or briefly ‘GAP questionnaires’) that were submitted by the project teams were reviewed. This is a mandatory electronic reporting for project holders of IPs and NoEs, due at the end of the first reporting period.

This reporting tool was conceived to be completed by the project coordinator for the whole of the project (in parts 1, 2, 5 and 6) and by each contractor for certain issues (parts 1, 3, and 4)82_.

Instructions on how to complete the questionnaire should have been communicated to the project holders by the Commission Project Officer.

The GAP questionnaires were available in SESAM (the online reporting system installed by the European Commission for FP6 project reporting) for thirteen of the 20 projects from CIT1 and CIT3 in the sample by May 2007. No GAP questionnaires were available yet for CIT4 projects as the contracts for these projects were only signed in the second half of 2006, early 2007. In general, drawing conclusions as to the quality of the GAP implementation by the project holders on the basis of these GAP questionnaires has been difficult for a number of reasons. There has apparently been confusion among the project holders on how and by whom these GAP questionnaires needed to be filled in.

For six of the thirteen projects, only one questionnaire was submitted for the whole project and consortium. However, only one of these was complete. The five others missed the part on gender statistics in the work force and ‘gender actions’ in the project that needed to be completed by each contractor. For the other eight projects, the questionnaire part relating to the gender balance in the workforce (statistics) and ‘gender actions’ in the project was completed for all consortium partners individually (for one project, up to 42 separate sheets were submitted).

Also, the feedback and data provided in these (sometimes partial) questionnaires appeared to be fragmented and of highly variable quality. This observation raises questions as to the usability of SESAM, electronic reporting system used by the European Commission, as well as on the use made of these reports by the European Commission. Indeed, this finding might lead one to wonder whether in the Commission the completeness and quality of this reporting by project holders was monitored by anybody at all – although this is the responsibility of the respective project officers.

Nevertheless, the review of these thirteen GAP questionnaires revealed that only four of these projects indicated to have a budget allocated to their GAP (ranging from 20.000 euro to 170.855

82 _{As specified in the document ‘Project reporting in FP6. Guidance notes for Integrated Projects, Networks of Excellence,}

Specific Targeted Research or Innovation Projects, Coordination Actions, Specific Support Actions, Co-operative Research Projects and Collective Research Projects’.

euro). In the absence of financial resources for the realisation of a GAP, its effectiveness can be questioned. However, in the GAP structure, the EC had not foreseen a section in which a dedicated budget was to be indicated. What was requested was only a ‘plan’, a text. The analysis also learns however that there are a few projects that demonstrate a positive situation or evolution in terms of gender integration in their project, as illustrated by the examples below.

One NoE of CIT3, which was considered as poorly integrating gender in the project based on its technical annex, while its GAP was rated as ‘two star’, has been the only one to have submitted a complete GAP report for the whole project and consortium. This GAP report was found to be of acceptable quality. It indicated that a budget of 85000 euro was allocated to the GAP within the project.

An IP from CIT1 which mentioned but did not address gender in its technical annex, and of which the GAP was rated as only a ‘one star’ GAP, submitted a GAP report of adequate quality, in which the project team gives a fair view of the status as regards gender. They recognise that ‘the gender dimension of the research could be enhanced’, a fact that is duly taken on board by the project leaders. At the same time, they demonstrate to have undertaken various actions in terms of equal opportunities.

The above examples show that the GAPs have brought about some positive results and thus have had an added value, albeit that this could have been bigger. But even while results could have been more substantial, the GAPs have at least had an awareness-raising effect within the consortia running Integrated Projects and Networks of Excellence.

In summary, the review revealed that the GAP reporting system and design were inadequate for providing an easy or transparent view on the reality of the projects. Moreover, the questionable quantity and quality of reports available in the system casts doubts over the user-friendliness and functionalities of the reporting system itself – again an indication of a persistent problem of deficient electronic information systems.

It can therefore be concluded that, while it is absolutely legitimate for the EC as funding authority to require reporting from the project holders, the reporting tools that were put in place did not allow an effective exploitation of the data provided. Furthermore, there are signs that the Commission has not at all monitored, let alone effectively used, the reporting results. Still, from the scarce data that could be retrieved through the GAP reporting, it appeared that even though the GAPs have not been fully effective, in that they do not seem to have helped all projects to integrate gender adequately, they have had an added value, not in the least in terms of awareness-raising.