acceding and candidate countries and the 6th framework programme conference

European Commission - DG Research - Directorate B – “Structuring the European Research Area”Jean-David MALO – Bucharest, February 12-13, 2004 - NOT LEGALLY BINDING - Page n°1

Acceding and Candidate Countriesand the 6th Framework Programme Conference

(Bucharest, February 12-13, 2004)

“FP6 New Instruments : IP and NoE"


A wider range of better differentiated instruments for the thematic priorities

New instruments

Integrated projects

Networks of excellence

Article 169

Traditional instruments

Specific targeted research projects

Coordination actions

Specific support actions


Principles guiding their design

Simplification and streamlining

reduction of administrative burden and speed up procedures, especially time-to-contract

Flexibility and adaptability

to enable instruments to be applicable throughout all the priority themes and projects to evolve

Increased management autonomy

to eliminate unnecessary micro-management

While preserving public accountability and protecting interests of the Community


Classification of the instruments

Instrument Purpose Primarydeliverable

Scale

IP

NoE

Art. 169

STREP

CA

SSA

objective-driven research

tacklefragmentation

joint MSprogrammes

research

coordination

support

knowledge

structuring

knowledge and/or

structuring

knowledge

coordination

support

med-high

med-high

high

low-med

low-med

low-med


“FP6Integrated Projects”

An instrument for supporting objective-driven research of European dimension


Purpose of Integrated Projects

Designed to generate the knowledge required to implement the priority thematic areas of FP6

by integrating the critical mass of activities and resources needed

to achieve ambitious, clearly defined scientific and technological objectives

Essentially an instrument for supporting objective-driven research of a European dimension


IP- Activities

May cover the full research spectrum

must contain objective-driven research

technological development and demonstration components as appropriate

may contain a training component

the effective management of knowledge will also be an essential feature

the whole carried out in a coherent management framework


Critical mass

Resources: those needed to achieve its ambitious objectives

but no minimum threshold, provided necessary ambition and critical mass is achieved

Partnership: minimum of 3 participants from 3 different States, of which at least 2 should be M S or ACC

but in practice substantially more

Duration: typically 3 to 5 years

but more if necessary to deliver the objectives


Financial regime (I)

A Community “grant to the budget” paid as a contribution to actual costsnecessary to the project

determined in accordance with the normal accounting rules of the participants

recorded in their accounts

excluding indirect taxes, interests...

Annual settlement of paymentsan outline of previous 12 months’ activities

summary financial statement by participant

certification by independent auditor

justification of the costs incurred


Financial regime (2)

3 simplified cost methodologies (still under discussion)

full costs (FC)

full costs flat rate (FCF)

additional costs (AC)

Maximum rates of support (FC-FCF participants)

research components: 50 %

demonstration components: 35 %

management and training: 100 % (7% rule)

AC participants: 100 % of additional costs for all components


Evaluation processCalls for proposals ( possibly preceded by calls for expressions of interest)

Simplified proposal making (evolutionary nature of the project)

Strengthened peer review system (stages, individual reviews, panel sessions, hearings…)

Key evaluation criteria

scale of ambition and potential impact

critical mass (activities, resources)

effectiveness of knowledge management

quality of project management

changes decided by the consortium (no additional funding)

calls launched by the Commission (with additional funding)


“FP6Networks

ofexcellence”

An instrument for tackling the fragmentation of European research


NoE Objectives

Strengthen Europe’s excellence on a particular research topic

by integrating the critical mass of expertise needed to provide European leadership and be a world force

around a joint programme of activities

Tackling the fragmentation of European research

where the main deliverable is a durable structuring and shaping of how research is carried out in Europe

Spreading excellence beyond its partners


NoE Joint programme of activities

A range of new or re-oriented activities:

Integrating activities

coordinated programming of the partners’ activities

sharing of research platforms/tools/facilities

joint management of the knowledge portfolio

staff mobility and exchanges

relocation of staff, teams, equipment

reinforced electronic communication systems

Joint Research programme:to support the network’s goals

Activities to spread excellence: training, dissemination and communication

within a unified management framework


NoE Critical mass

Expertise: this needed to achieve its ambitious objectives

variable from topic to topic

but no minimum threshold, provided necessary ambition and critical mass is achieved

Partnership: minimum of 3 participants from 3 different States, of which at least 2 should be M S or ACC

but in general at least 6

Duration: typically 5 years, possibly more but no more than 7 years


NoE Financial regime(1)

A fixed grant for integration, acting as an incentive, calculated on basis:

of the degree of integration

of the total number of researchers

of the characteristics of the field of research

of the joint programme of activities

with a bonus for registered doctoral students


NoE Financial regime(2)

The average annual grant to a network could vary with the number of researchers as follows:

50 researchers € 1 million/year 100 researchers € 2 million/year 150 researchers € 3 million/year 250 researchers € 4 million/year 500 researchers € 5 million/year 1000 researchers and above € 6 million/year


NoE Payments regime

Annual payments of the grant will be paid on the basis of results

depending on a progressive advance towards a durable integration

with an additional check that costs of at least the value of the grant were incurred in implementing the joint programme of activities


NoE Evaluation process

Calls for proposals ( possibly preceded by calls for expressions of interest)

Simplified proposal making (evolutionary nature of the network)

Strengthened peer review system (stages, individual reviews, panel sessions, hearings…)

Key evaluation criteria

potential impact on strengthening European excellence

collective excellence of the network’s members

extent, depth and lasting nature of integration

contribution to spreading excellence

management and governance of the network

critical mass (activities, resources)

effectiveness of knowledge management

quality of project management

changes decided by the consortium (no additional funding)

calls launched by the Commission (with additional funding)


NoE Governance and monitoring

Institutional engagement by partners organisations

“governing council” (senior representatives of the partners): overseeing the integration of the partners’ activities

Robust output monitoring by the Commission, assisted by external experts

annual reviews (basis for payment, yellow flag/red flag)

end-of-term review: assessment of impact and lasting character


Reminder Main NoE features(1)

Demonstrated need for structuring

description of fragmentation on the topic

existence of excellent capacities in Europe in the topic

Is there a real need for a structuring

intervention?



Characteristics of the network planned

composition of the partnership: presence of key excellent actors

potential synergies, complementarities, potential specialisation among the members

quality/degree of integration planned

Is the network planned likely to constitute an answer to the fragmentation problem identified?



Viability of the network during and beyond the period

awareness of high decision level representatives of the participating organisations: strong commitment

security regarding network’s funding, particularly beyond the period

Will the network constitute a durable answer to the problem identified?


Some general comments after the first calls

o Some misunderstanding regarding the concept of integration

o Partnerships as a rule too large

o Some doubts about the use of the Community grant

o Some uncertainty regarding the final « deliverable » expected from the network


Concept of integration

o much further than simple co-ordination

o requires an institutional active and permanent involvement

o sort of “mutation process”


Partnerships

o likely to allow for actual integration

o all partners expected to be equal

o all partners directly involved in the « governing board »

o should remain manageable!!!


Use of the Community grant

o decided by the consortium

o on entirely autonomous basis

o can be used for ANY activity of the joint programme of activities (integrating activities, joint research programme, spreading of excellence, management)


What does the Commission expect as deliverable?

Main objective: durable integration at the end of the funding period

o Beyond the funding period (more than 5 years)

o Clearly demonstrated at the end of the period (legal structure, important shared investments, important common projects portfolio….)


THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTIONTHANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION

Questions / Answers Questions / Answers

acceding and candidate countries and the 6th framework programme conference

Documents