Participation & Dissemination Rules for 6th Framework Programme 2002-2006 (EC)

1. Participation & DisseminationRules for 6th Framework Programme2002-2006(EC) NICOLAS SABATIEREuropean Commission RDT - Directorate A - Unit 3

2. Legal Framework INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS EC TREATY PARTICIPATION AND DISSEMINATION RULES FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME Other relevant EC Regulations: e.g. EC Financial Regulations (Budgetary Law) SPECIFIC PROGRAMS CONTRACTS

3. General issues Next steps • Final Adoption by the Council (November 2002) • Development of Model Contracts and work programmes + Calls for proposals (November 2002) • Publication of Calls : 17 December 2002

4. General Issues Drafted with the aim of • Simplification: no implementing regulations; less than 10 model-contracts (currently 33) • Flexibility: the work programme may adjust rules to RTD activities’/instruments’ specificity • Autonomy for participants: within the framework of the rules, organisation of relations within the consortium is a matter for participants themselves

5. Instruments • New Networks of excellence, Integrated projects, Integrated initiatives infrastructures, Collective research projects (Specific research projects for SMEs), Article 169 • Traditional Specific targeted projects, Co-operative research projects(Specific research projects for SMEs), Actions to promote and develop human resources and mobility(Some arenew), Co-ordination actions, Specific support actions • BUT RULES APPLIES TO ALL

6. Principles guiding their design • Simplification and streamlining • to minimise the overheads for all concerned • to speed up procedures, especially time-to-contract • Increased legal and financial security • to avoid weaknesses of FP5 instruments • Flexibility and adaptability • to enable instruments to adapt to changing circumstances, both in science and partnership • Increased management autonomy • to eliminate unnecessary micromanagement • While preserving public accountability and protecting interests of the Community

7. Classification of the instruments

8. Objectives of IPs • Designed to generate the knowledge required to implement the priority themes • by integrating the critical mass of activities and resources needed • to achieve ambitious clearly defined scientific and technological objectives Essentially therefore an instrument for sponsoring objective-driven research of a European dimension

9. Types of activities in IPs • Activities integrated by a project may cover the full research spectrum • should contain objective-driven research • technological development and demonstration components as appropriate • may contain a training component • the effective management of knowledge and when appropriate its exploitation, will be essential • the whole carried out in a coherent management framework

10. Expected scale of critical mass of an IP • Resources: each IP must assemble the critical mass of resources needed to achieve its ambitious objectives • activities integrated may range up to € several tens of millions (but no minimum threshold) • Partnership: minimum of three participants from three different countries • but in practice likely to be substantially more • SME participation is strongly encouraged • ‘Third country’ participants may be included, with a possibility of Community financial support for certain groups of countries • Duration: typically three to five years • but more if necessary to deliver the objectives

11. Objectives of NoE • Designed to 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 • An instrument for tackling the fragmentation of European research • where the main deliverable is a durable structuring and shaping of how research is carried out in Europe • Each NoE has a mission to spread excellence beyond its partners

12. The joint programme of activities of a NoE (1) • A range ofneworre-orientedactivities • 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 and equipment • reinforced electronic communication systems

13. The joint programme of activities of a NoE (2) • joint research activities : a programme of joint research to support the network’s goals • development of new research tools and platforms for common use • generating new knowledge to fill gaps in or to extend the collective knowledge portfolio

14. The joint programme of activities of a NoE(3) • Activities to spread excellence • trainingresearchers and other key staff • dissemination and communication activities • networking activities to help transfer knowledge to teams external to the network • where appropriate, promoting the exploitation of the results generated within the network • where appropriate, innovation-related activities: protection of knowledge generated, assessment of the socio-economic impact of the knowledge and technologies generated, developing a plan for use and dissemination of the knowledge, take-up activities (especially for SMEs)

15. The joint programme of activities of a NoE(4) • Network management: • overall coordination of the joint activities • communication with the Commission, reporting • activities linked to consortium-level financing and accounting management and legal issues • coordination of the knowledge management activities, and where appropriate, other innovation-related activities • promotion of gender equality • science and society issues related to the topics of the network • supporting the governing board and other network bodies All activities within aunified management structure

16. Expected scale ofcritical mass of a NoE • Expertise: assembling of the critical mass needed to achieve the ambitious goals of the network • variable from topic to topic • larger networks may involve several hundreds of researchers • but may be smaller, provided the necessary ambition and critical mass are achieved • Partnership: in general at least six (legal minimum: 3 from 3 different countries) • Duration of Community support:typically 5 years • more if necessary to create durable integration BUT no more than 7 years

17. Objectives of Article 169 • Enables the Community to participate in research programmes carried out jointly by a number of MS • Potentially a most powerful instrument • IPs and NoEs integrate individual performers of research • 169s integrate national programmes • But may be difficult to use in large numbers • each requires a co-initiative by national programmes and the Commission to generate a proposal • long and complex decision-making, as long as co-decisions of Council and Parliament taken case-by-case • so far untried • the Commission has presented a pilot proposal

18. Objectives and Activities of STREPs • Designed to generate the knowledge required to improve European competitiveness and to meet the needs of society or Community policies: • by improving existing or developing new products, processes or services and/or • by proving the viability of new technologies offering potential economic advantage • May combine any of the following types of activities: • Targeted, well defined and precisely focused research and technological development • Demonstration component(s) as appropriate • Project management

19. STREPs main characteristics(1) • STREPs compared to IPs: • The STREP scale of ambition is much more limited than that of IPs, consequently : • Different: Value of activities, Duration, Size of the consortium, Types of activities, Types of Calls (EOI-Calls), Evaluation process/key issues (partly), Negotiation, Consortium agreement, Implementation (partly), Follow-up (partly)

20. STREPs main characteristics(2) • STREPs compared to FP5 RTD projects : • Similar:Objectives, Scale of ambition, Value, Duration, Size of consortium, Types of participants, Calls, Evaluation, Negotiation, Follow-up, Audits • Different: Financial regime, SimplifiedProposals, Contractual aspects, Consortium agreement, Collective responsibility, Implementation, IPR

21. Objectives and activities of CAs • Designed to promote and support the networking and co-ordination of research and innovation activities at national, regional and European level. • by establishing in a coherent way co-ordinated initiatives of a range of research and innovation operators, in order to achieve improved integration of the European research. • May combine the following twotypesof activities • Co-ordination activities • Project management activities

22. Types of co-ordination Activities Each CA shall consist of a programme of work, incorporating all or some of the following types of mid/long term collaborative activities: • Organisation of conferences, of meetings; • Performance of studies, analysis; • Exchanges of personnel; • Exchange and dissemination of good practice; • Setting up of common information systems • Setting up of expert groups; • Definition, organisation and management of joint or common initiatives.

23. CAs main characteristics • CAs compared to NoE: • Instrument for ad hoc co-operation between organisations for a specific purpose - no requirement for durable integration of all activities • A networking instrument for research funded from other sources (EC/national/regional) • CAs compared to SSAs: • Instrument for more longer term co-operation and networking compared to the more stand alone activities to be funded by SSAs • CAs compared to IPs and STREPs: • CA is not an instrument to fund research

24. Objectives and activities of SSAs • Designed to • complement the other FP6 instruments, • help in preparations for future Community research and technological development policy activities and • stimulate, encourage and facilitate the participation of SMEs, small research teams, newly developed and remote research centres, as well as those organisations from the Candidate Countries in the activities of the priority thematic areas. • May combine the following two types of activities • Support activities • Project management activities

25. Types of support activities Each SSA shall have an action plan, which may consist of one or more (as appropriate on a case by case basis) of the following activities: • Conferences, seminars, working groups and expert groups; • Studies, analysis; • Fact findings and monitoring; • Trans-national technology transfer and take-up related services; • Development of research or innovation strategies; • High level scientific awards and competitions; • Operational support and dissemination, information and communication activities.

26. SSAs main characteristics • SSAs compared to CAs: • Instrument to support the implementation of the programme, priority or research objective - in most cases - stand alone events (meetings, conferences, studies etc.) • Instrument for future oriented activities: research roadmaps, identification of future research objectives • Instrument for dissemination and uptake of programme results • SSAs compared to IPs and STREPs: • SSA is not an instrument to fund research activities

27. Participation Who can participate? • NewEvery legal entity that contributes to the project (incl. Project managers) • New Associated candidate countries = Member States • New International European interest organisations = Member States

28. Participation Minimum number • New3 from MS or AS, with 2 from MS or Ass. Cand. Countries for all the instruments • 1 (MS or AS or Third Country or International organisation) possible for fellowships and specific support actions Flexibility :Minimum number can be increased by work-programmes

29. Participation Other countries and other International organisations • INTEGRATING PART • Participation for all • Financing for INCO countries • Financing for others if essential to carry out the project • OTHER PARTS • Participation for all those with co-operation agreement under its conditions; funding if essential. • Participation for the others in activities if necessary to carry out the project; funding if essential.

30. Instruments to be used in priority • Calls for proposals will identify which instruments are to be used, which have priority, and for what • From the outset, IPs and NoEs will be the priority means • for implementing those themes where it is already deemed appropriate • while maintaining the use of specific targeted research projects, co-ordination actions and specific support actions • In 2004, the Commission will arrange an independent evaluation of the use of the instruments • may lead to an adjustment of their relative weightings

31. Evaluation Core criteria & Criteria for new instruments To be specified and complemented in work programmes according to instrument and activity New Additional criteria Synergies with education, role of women in research, societal impact Not compulsory Exclusion criteria Violation of fundamental ethical principles New Financial irregularities (see EC Financial Regulations)

32. Evaluation New Two-stage evaluation procedure If specified in the call for proposals New Evaluation on a non-anonymous basis Unless otherwise specified in call for proposal New Manuals on evaluation and on negotiation and selection procedures

33. Key issues in the evaluation of IPs • Relevance to the objectives of the programme (S&T, S-E, policy objectives of WP) • S&T excellence(focus, progress beyond state-of-art, S&T approach) • Potential impact(ambition,competitiveness, societal problems, European dimension, optimal use of results) • Quality of the consortium(commitment, suitability, complementarity, SMEs) • Quality of the management(organisational structure, project, knowledge, IPR, innovation) • Mobilisation of resources (critical mass, coherence, financial

34. Key issues in the evaluation of NoE • Relevance to the objectives of the programme(S&T, S-E, policy objectives of WP) • Participants excellence (R&D, suitability, critical mass) • Potential impact (strenghthening S&T excellence, ambition, spreading excellence, durable structuring) • Degree of integration & JPA (deep and durable integration, quality) • Organisation and management (organisational structure, network)

35. Key issues in the evaluation of STREPs • Relevance to the objectives of the programme (S&T, S-E, policy objectives of WP) • S&T excellence (focus, progress beyond state-of-art, S&T approach) • Potential impact (competitiveness, societal problems, European dimension, optimal use of results) • Quality of the consortium (commitment, suitability, complementarity, SMEs) • Quality of the management (project, knowledge, IPR, innovation) • Mobilisation of resources (necessity, coherence, financial plan)

36. Implementation How? • Contractual link of all participants with the Commission • Newno more categories : all participants are contractors and have the same rights & obligations • Contract enters into force and the advance is paid • Newonce signed by the coordinator and the Commission • New other contractors’ written consents are collected by the coordinator and sent to the Commission within two months = quicker entry into force and payment

37. Implementation How? • Change/addition of participants • New at the request of the coordinator, deemed to act on behalf of the consortium • Newwith implicit agreement of the Commission within 6 weeks • New in IP/NoE, enlargement of the consortium to new participants and new activities may be foreseen. This enlargement follows then a call launched by the consortium with evaluation of proposals by external experts

38. Flexibility and autonomy in implementing IPs • For the implementation plan, each year, the consortium • proposes a detailed plan for the coming 18 months • and may propose to update the overall plan • both need approval of the Commission to enter into force • For the Community contribution • the contract will not specify its distribution between participants nor between activities • For changes in the consortium • the consortium may itself decide to take in new participants (though without additional funding) • the contract will specify when this must involve a competitive call • the Commission may decide to launch calls to add activities and participants (with additional funding)

39. Flexibility and autonomy for NoE • For the JPA, each year, the network • proposes a detailed JPA for the coming 18 months • and may propose to update the overall JPA • both need approval of the Commission to enter into force • For the allocation of the Community grant • the partnership will have freedom to distribute it between partners and between activities • For changes in the network partnership • the partnership may itself decide to take in new partners (though without additional financing) • the contract will specify when this must involve a competitive call • the Commission may decide to launch calls to add partners (with additional financing)

40. Implementation of STREPs, CAs and SSAs • For the work plan, the consortium • proposes a detailed plan for the whole duration • and may propose to modify the detailed work plan • but needs approval of the Commission to enter into force and • without modifying the overall objectives and deliverables • For the Community contribution • the contract will not specify its distribution between participants • For changes in the consortium • the consortium may modify its composition (subject to Commission approval, without additional funding, infrequent occurrence)

41. Financing Grant for integration Grant to the budget Flat-rate Networks of excellence  Integrated Projects  Specific targeted research projects  Specific research projects for SMEs  Integrated initiatives relating to infrastructure  Actions to promote human resources & mobility   Coordination actions  Specific support actions  

42. Financing Grant for integration (NoE) • Newmechanism • Calculation basis: degree of integration, number of researchers to be integrated, characteristics of the field concerned, JPA not as a %age of the budget for the JPA • Payment basis: completion of the JPA + costs certificates mentioning that the costs incurred are greater than the grant itself • Premium for integration (fixed grant)

43. Financial regime of NoE • Theaverage annual grantto a network could vary with the number of researchers as follows: • In this illustration, a network of 200 researchers supported over 5 years would therefore receive a fixed grant of €17.5 million (plus bonus for registered doctoral students)

44. Financing Grant to the budget • Calculation basis: %age of the preliminary budget of the execution plan • Payment basis: covers a share of the expenditure incurred, necessary for the execution of the indirect action • %age depends on: • type of activity • participant involved (cost models)

45. Financing Cost Models: definition • FC: actual direct and indirect costs • New FCF (variant of FC): actual direct costs + flat rate for indirect costs (20% of total actual direct costs, except subcontracting) • AC: actual additional direct costs + flat rate for indirect costs (20% of total actual additional direct costs, except subcontracting)

46. Financing Cost Models: application • New Organisation based, not according to accounting capacities; mandatory or optional; no change allowed during FP6 • International organisations, physical persons: ACF • Public non-profit - Pending issue Solution 1: FC or FCF or ACF (optional) solution 2: ACF (optional) • SMEs: FC or FCF (optional) • Other organisations: FC

47. Financing Type of activity Research and technological development (including innovation related activity) - 50% (100% AC) Demonstration - 35% (100% AC) Training - 100% (100% AC) New Consortium Management - reimbursed up to 100% within the limit of 7% of community contribution Other activities specific to an instrument - 100% (100% AC)

48. Financing • Modalities Newno cost categories but list of ineligible costs New Participants’ own accounting rules New Periodical cost certificates by external auditor New Periodical advances and settlements yearly for IP and NoE periodicity of settlements to be specified in the contract for other instruments New No pre-allocation of the EC contribution between participants (funding is granted to the consortium as a whole)

49. Reporting and payments schedule for IPs • Advance payment: equal to 85% of the Community contribution anticipated for the first 18 months • The consortium submitsannual reportcontaining: • an outline of previous 12 months’ activities • financial documents on the costs incurred (including cost certificates and management-level justification) • a detailed implementation plan and associated financial plan for the following 18 months • Upon acceptance of above by the Commission: • final settlement of paymentfor period concerned (subject to any ex-post audit) • outstandingadvance supplementedup to 85% of the anticipated Community contribution for following 18 months

50. Payments and reporting schedule for an IP(example of a 4 year contract) Activity report Reported costs Activity report Detailed work plan Reported costs Adjusted advance Activity report Detailed work plan Reported costs Adjusted advance Activity report Detailed work plan Reported costs Adjusted advance Detailed work plan Initial advance 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 Months