1

STREPSSTREPS

INTELLIGENT HERITAGE IN FP6INTELLIGENT HERITAGE IN FP6

“Traditional Instruments

in FP6 ”

An outline of the implementation of Specific Targeted Research Projects (STREPs) in the context

of the Sixth Framework Programme(as of October 2002)

europa.eu.int/comm/research/nfp/networks-ip.html

3

Designed to generate the knowledge required to improve Designed to generate the knowledge required to improve European competitiveness and to meet the needs of society European competitiveness and to meet the needs of society or Community policiesor Community policies

– by improving or developing new products, processes or by improving or developing new products, processes or services and/or services and/or

– by proving the viability of new technologies offering by proving the viability of new technologies offering potential economic advantagepotential economic advantage

Objectives

4

STREPs may combine two or more of the following types of STREPs may combine two or more of the following types of activities activities

– targeted, well defined and precisely focused research and targeted, well defined and precisely focused research and technological development technological development

– demonstration component(s) as appropriatedemonstration component(s) as appropriate

– project managementproject management

ActivitiesActivities

5

Concerning resources: each STREP must assemble the Concerning resources: each STREP must assemble the resources needed to achieve its objectivesresources needed to achieve its objectives– activities included may range up to several millions of € and activities included may range up to several millions of € and

involve up to several tens of researcher-yearsinvolve up to several tens of researcher-years• but no minimum thresholdbut no minimum threshold

Concerning its partnership: minimum of three participants from Concerning its partnership: minimum of three participants from three different countriesthree different countries– but in practice likely to be morebut in practice likely to be more

Concerning its duration: typically two to three yearsConcerning its duration: typically two to three years– but exceptionally more if duly justified as necessary to but exceptionally more if duly justified as necessary to

deliver the objectivesdeliver the objectives

Expected scaleExpected scale

6

Community support will be in the form of a Community support will be in the form of a “grant to the budget”“grant to the budget”

Paid as a contribution to actual costsPaid as a contribution to actual costs– that are incurred, economic and necessary for the that are incurred, economic and necessary for the

project, determined according to own rulesproject, determined according to own rules– that are recorded in the accounts of the participantsthat are recorded in the accounts of the participants

• or, when provided for in the contract, in the accounts of or, when provided for in the contract, in the accounts of third partiesthird parties

– that exclude indirect taxes…that exclude indirect taxes…

Financial regime (1)Financial regime (1)

7

Annually, each participant to provide a summary cost Annually, each participant to provide a summary cost statementstatement– certified by an independent auditor (if required)certified by an independent auditor (if required)– supported by a management-level justification of costssupported by a management-level justification of costs

Single family of three closely related cost models Single family of three closely related cost models – fullfull costs (FC), costs (FC), – variation of fullvariation of full-costs (FCF), incorporating a flat-rate -costs (FCF), incorporating a flat-rate

component component – additionaladditional costs (ACF), incorporating a flat-rate component costs (ACF), incorporating a flat-rate component

Financial regime (2)Financial regime (2)

8

Maximum rates of support for FC and FCF participantsMaximum rates of support for FC and FCF participants– 50% for RTD components50% for RTD components– 35% for any demonstration component35% for any demonstration component– 100% for project management (up to 7% of EC 100% for project management (up to 7% of EC

contribution)contribution)

ACF participants supported at up to 100% of additional costs ACF participants supported at up to 100% of additional costs for all components of the project (+ recurring project for all components of the project (+ recurring project management costs as above)management costs as above)

Further financial detailsFurther financial details

9

PARTICIPATION AND FINANCING POSSIBILITIES BY COUNTRY OF ESTABLISHMENT OFPARTICIPANT

Participant’s country ofestablishment

Participation Financing

European Union Member States,JRC

Rightfully Rightfully

Associated Candidate Countries Rightfully Rightfully

Other Associated Countries Rightfully Rightfully

International organisations ofEuropean interest

Rightfully Rightfully

Russia, New IndependentStates, Mediterranean Countries,Developing countries (with orwithout a co-operationagreement)

Rightfully over and above theminimum threshold

Within the limits of the budgetavailable for international co-operation activities in thecontext the thematic priorities

Third countries having a co-operation agreement

Rightfully over and above theminimum threshold

If Community contribution isnecessary and foreseen by theWork Programme

Other third countries If participation is foreseen or ifit is necessary for carrying outthe project

If Community contribution isforeseen or if it is essential forcarrying out the project

Other internationalorganisations

Rightfully over and above theminimum threshold

If Community contribution isforeseen in the work programmeor if it is essential for carryingout the project

Participation/financing

10

Calls for proposalsCalls for proposals– published in the OJ, via CORDIS web-site, via published in the OJ, via CORDIS web-site, via

NCPsNCPsSimplified proposal-makingSimplified proposal-making

– limited to sufficient “management level” detaillimited to sufficient “management level” detailEvaluation by a peer-review systemEvaluation by a peer-review system

– similar to the one in FP5similar to the one in FP56 Key evaluation criteria 6 Key evaluation criteria

Evaluation processEvaluation process

11

Relevance to the objectives of the programme. The extent to which:• the proposed project addresses the scientific, technical, socio-economic and policy objectives of the work programme in the areas open for the particular call.

S&T excellence. The extent to which:• the project has clearly defined and well focused objectives;• the objectives represent clear progress beyond the current state-of-the-art;• the proposed S&T approach is likely to enable the project to achieve its objectives in research and innovation.

Evaluation criteria (1)Evaluation criteria (1)

12

Potential impact. The extent to which:• the proposed project is likely to have an impact on reinforcing competitiveness, or on solving societal problems;

• the impact of the proposed work can best be achieved if carried out at European level;

• exploitation and/or dissemination plans are adequate to ensure optimal use of the project results.

Evaluation criteria (2)Evaluation criteria (2)

13

Quality of the consortium. The extent to which:• the participants collectively constitute a consortium of high quality;• the participants are well-suited and committed to the tasks assigned to them;• there is good complementarity between participants;• the opportunity of involving SMEs has been adequately addressed.Quality of the management. The extent to which:• the project management is demonstrably of high quality;• there is a satisfactory plan for the management of knowledge, of intellectual property and of other innovation-related activities.

Evaluation criteria (3)Evaluation criteria (3)

14

Mobilisation of resources. The extent to which:• the project foresees the resources (personnel, equipment, financial…) necessary for success;• the resources are convincingly integrated to form a coherent project;• the overall financial plan for the project is adequate .

Evaluation criteria (3)Evaluation criteria (3)

15

PROPOSALPROPOSALCONTENTCONTENT

• Objectives and expected impactObjectives and expected impact•Work plan and associated budgetWork plan and associated budget•The consortium and the project The consortium and the project resourcesresources•Project managementProject management•Exploitation and dissemination Exploitation and dissemination plansplans•Ethics, safety and other issues Ethics, safety and other issues (where relevant)(where relevant)

See Info-Pack/“Guide for See Info-Pack/“Guide for Proposers” for precise detailsProposers” for precise details

Parts/content of a proposalParts/content of a proposal

16

Single contract between EC and (as the case may be):• All the participants• A common legal structure (association, EEIG, etc.)

representing them legally

Content of the contract• core text• technical annex• general conditions• specific conditions• max. EC contribution (RTD, Demo, management), but

no distribution between partners• subcontracts exceeding limit (as specified in model

contract);

Contractual aspects (1)Contractual aspects (1)

17

Rights and obligations of the participants:• consortium agreement• coordinator• collective responsibility • identical intellectual property rules for all participants

For More Info See:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6/working-groups/model-contract/index en.html)

Contractual aspects (2)Contractual aspects (2)

18

For the work plan, the consortiumFor the work plan, the consortium– proposes a detailed plan for the whole durationproposes a detailed plan for the whole duration– and may propose to modify the detailed work planand may propose to modify the detailed work plan

• but needs approval of the Commission to enter into force but needs approval of the Commission to enter into force andand

• without modifying the overall objectives and deliverableswithout modifying the overall objectives and deliverables For the Community contributionFor the Community contribution

– the contract will not specify its distribution between participants the contract will not specify its distribution between participants For changes in the consortiumFor changes in the consortium

– the consortium may modify its composition the consortium may modify its composition (subject (subject to Commission approval, to Commission approval, withoutwithout additional funding, additional funding, infrequent occurrence)infrequent occurrence)

ImplementationImplementation

19

Final activity reportReported costs +

audit certificate (mandatory)Final payment

Periodic activity report (mid-term review : optional)

Reported costs+ (audit certificate : optional)

Intermediate payment/

settlement

Detailed work plan

Initial advance

0 6 12 14 18 24 26 30 36 38

Months

Payment and reporting schedulePayment and reporting schedule

20

Follow-up scheme:Follow-up scheme:– Commission PO assignedCommission PO assigned

– may foresee mid-term review with assistance of experts (if may foresee mid-term review with assistance of experts (if duration >3 years), with a go/no go decision to continue the projectduration >3 years), with a go/no go decision to continue the project

– may include technical, financial, technological and/or ethical auditsmay include technical, financial, technological and/or ethical audits

MonitoringMonitoring

21

Summary

Access rights topre-existing know-how

Access rights to knowledgeresulting from the project

Yes, if a participant needs them for carrying out his own work under the project

For carrying outthe project

Royalty-freeunless otherwise agreed

before signing the contractRoyalty-free

Yes, if a participant needs them for using his own knowledgeFor use purposes

(exploitation +further research) On non-discriminatory and reasonable conditions to

be agreed

Royalty-freeunless otherwise agreed

before signing the contract

Possibility for participants to agree on exclusion ofspecific pre-existing know-how of a participant

from this obligation before this participant signs thecontract (or before entry of a new participant)

Access rightsAccess rights

22

Instrument Primarydeliverable

Secondarydeliverable

Scale

IP

NoE

169

STRP

CA

knowledge

structuring

knowledge and/or

structuring

knowledge

coordination

structuring

knowledge

med-high

med-high

high

low-med

low

Classification of instrumentsClassification of instruments

23

Coordinator STREPS Coordinator STREPS

Christos ProfilisChristos ProfilisTelTel :: +32/(0)2/295.97.35+32/(0)2/295.97.35FaxFax :: +32/(0)2/296.32.61+32/(0)2/296.32.61christos.profilis@cec.eu.intchristos.profilis@cec.eu.int

More informationMore information

Practical guides to individual instruments are available

http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/nfp/networks-ip.html