We have tried to capture the impact both positive and negative of the rule changes on the funding of different types of organisations as follows: 

	Large industry	SMEs	University Academics	Consultancies
Positive changes	1. Demonstration now 50% instead of 35% 2. Management 7% limit removed 3. Less financial risk 4. ETP and JTIs 5. Most audit costs less 6. Larger interim payments	1. Funding increased to 75% from 50% 2. Demonstration 50% 3. No bank guarantees 4. Most audit costs less 5. Larger interim payments	1. Can charge permanent staff 2. Calculating overheads increases funding 3. Derogation maintains minimum as per FP6 4. Demonstration 50% 5. Most audit costs less 6. Larger interim payments	1. Funding increased to 75% from 50% 2. Demonstration 50% 3. No bank guarantees 4. Management 7% limit removed 5. Most audit costs less 6. Larger interim payments
Negative changes	1. Prepayment withholding 15% net of total funding 2. CSA overheads reduced to 7% from 20%	1. Prepayment withholding 15% net of total funding 2. CSA overheads reduced to 7% from 20% 3. *Demonstration 50% 4. Ex ante coordination barrier 5. Ex ante 500,000 Euro barrier	1. Prepayment withholding 15% net of total funding 2. CSA overheads reduced to 7% from 20% 3. *Demonstration 50%	1. Prepayment withholding 15% net of total funding 2. CSA overheads reduced to 7% from 20% 3. *Demonstration 50% 2. Ex ante coordination barrier 3. Ex ante 500,000 Euro barrier
Summary	Slightly better off	Better off, but less than appears	Most significantly better off	CSAs much worse, RTD as for SMEs

* Note that Demonstrations now being funded at 50% instead of 35% under FP6, could have a negative as well as positive impact on participants who are not large industrial companies. As the latter most often co-ordinate, they have less reason not to include "Demonstration" activity. However such an inclusion could reduce others funding from 75% to 50%.