The 6th FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME - New instruments for Old

1. The 6th FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME - New instruments for Old Mike W Rogers European Commission mike.rogers@cec.eu.int with thanks to my colleagues who attended the FP6 Launch Conference!

2. Wider range of suitable instruments New instruments • Integrated Projects (IP) • Networks of Excellence (NoE) • Article-169 (joint implementation-national programmes) • Adventure, Insight, Pathfinder - NEST support unconventional and visionary research exploring new avenues of S&T Traditional instruments - only where needed • Specific targeted research projects • Co-ordination actions • Specific support actions

3. Why NEW Instruments • Natural Progression - Networks have been getting larger as FP’s progress • New Policy targets aim at greater co-operation at operational not project based level • New Instruments offer greater possibility for structural co-financing and strategic support • Possibilities to reduce Bureaucratic overheads • Widen possible participation • Old instruments continued for specific purposes.

4. Principles guiding their design • Simplification and streamlining • minimise the overheads for all concerned: applicant, contractor or the Commission • speed up procedures, especially time-to-contract • Flexibility and adaptability • enable common instruments applicable throughout the themes • enable projects to evolve • Increased management autonomy • eliminate duplicating micro-management • While preserving public accountability and protecting interests of the Community • At the end of the day it is YOUR Taxes and Rules approved by the EP and CoM - your democratic reps.

5. Instruments to be used in priority • Calls for proposals identify which instruments to be used when • From start, IPs and NoE will be the priority means • for implementing themes where it is deemed appropriate • while maintaining the use of specific targeted research projects and co-ordination actions • 2004 independent evaluation of the NEW instruments • may lead to an adjustment of their relative use

6. New Instrument Integrated Projects “Vertically self sufficient projects to make a strategic impact” IPs

7. Purpose of IPs • Designed to generate knowledge • integrating the critical mass of activities and resources needed • to achieve ambitious,clearly defined scientific and technologicalobjectives with an identifiable European dimension IPs

8. Activities • Integrated projects may cover the full research spectrum: • Obligatory: • objective-driven research • effective management of knowledge • a coherent management framework • Optional: • technological development/demonstration component • training component IPs

9. What is the scale of critical mass (I)? • Concerning resources: • An IP must assemble critical mass of resources needed to achieve its ambitious objectives • activities integrated may range up to 30-50 millions € • no minimum threshold, • provided necessary ambition and • critical mass is achieved IPs

10. What is critical mass (II)? • Partnership: minimum of three participants from three different Member States or Associated States, • of which at least two should be Member States or Associated (candidate) 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 • Concerning its duration: • typically 3-5 years • but more if necessary to deliver the objectives • can be less subject to other constraints. IPs

11. Financial regime • Community support will be in the form of a “grant to the budget” • Paid as a contribution to actual costs • that are necessary for the project • that are recorded in the accounts of the participants • or, when provided for in contract, in the accounts of 3rd parties • that exclude indirect taxes, duties, interest… • Annually, each participant to provide a summary cost statement supported by: • certification of total costs by an independent (LOCAL) auditor • management-level justification of costs IPs

12. Cost models • A single family of three closely related cost models • FC: all actual direct and indirect costs;(Full Costs) • FCF:all actual direct costs plus 20% of these direct costs (excluding subcontracting) to cover related indirect costs; and • ACF: additional (actual) direct costs plus 20% of these direct additional costs (excluding subcontracting) to cover related indirect costs • Each organisation may use only 1 model for all its FP6 participation, where they are relevant. • The same cost methodologies will be used for all instruments implemented through ‘grant to the budget’ IPs

13. Rates of Community support • Maximum rates of support for FC and FCF participants: • 50% for RTD and innovation-related components • 35% for any demonstration component • 100% for any training activities • 100% for consortium management • ACF participants: supported at up to 100% for all components of the project (except for consortium management which will be supported as under FCF) • For IPs, no more than 7% of the Community contribution can be used to support consortium management costs reimbursed at rate of 100% IPs

14. Proposal submission • Through calls for proposals • may be preceded by expressions of interest to • help focus calls • assist in consortium building • Simplified proposal-making, reflecting evolutionary nature of the project • summary description of activities for entire duration • detailed implementation plan for first 18 months • Updated after review stages, on a rolling basis • Every “Call” will be free to choose the most suitable method!!!!! Watch them!!!!!!!! IPs

15. Evaluation process • Evaluation by a strengthened peer-review system • possibly in stages, involving individual reviews, panel sessions, perhaps hearings of applicants as needed • Key issues to be addressed during evaluation: • relevance to the objectives of the specific programme • scale of ambition and potential impact • S&T excellence • quality of the consortium • qualityof the project and ‘knowledge’ management • critical mass in terms of activities and resources • Link to Annual/Rolling Review basis IPs

16. Initial contract and advance payment • The contract will specify the maximum Community Contribution, but not its distribution among participants • consortium autonomy, eliminates source of micro-management • Technical annex contains • overall description of the project • detailed implementation plan only of first 18 months • Advance payment: <=85% of EC contribution for 18m. • Simplified (single) signature procedure -faster start up • Consortium designates a ‘coordinator’ • liaison with Commission, • receives and distributes budget • Consortium agreement is a prerequisite, not a posteriori IPs

17. Payments and reporting schedule(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 IPs 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 Months

18. Flexibility and autonomy of implementation • 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 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) • e.g. to enhance SME participation IPs

19. Really new Instrument Networks of Excellence Designed to integrate specific research activities in the European Research Area by creating networks of the best researchers in Europe on any given subject matter. NoEs

20. Objectives • Designed to strengthen Europe’s excellence on a particular research topic • by integrating the best expertise needed to provide European leadership and be a world force • around a joint programme of activities • Tackling thefragmentation 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 • spreadexcellence beyond the partners NoEs

21. The joint programme of activities (1) • 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 and equipment • reinforced electronic communication systems • Joint research activities : programme of joint research to support the goals of the network • develop research tools and platforms for common use • generate knowledge extending joint portfolio NoEs

22. The joint programme of activity(2) • Activities to spread excellence • training researchers and other key staff • dissemination and communication activities • networking activities transfer knowledge to external teams • where appropriate, promoting exploitation of the results generated • 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) • Network management • overall coordination of the joint activities • communication with the Commission, reporting • activities to consortium financing/accounting management/legal issues • coordination of the knowledge management 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 a unified management structure NoEs

23. Critical mass • 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 • Indicators are that some networks will have 20-50 partners NoEs

24. Financial regime (1) • Community support targeted • at overcoming the barriers to a durable integration • these barriers are mainly organisational, cultural and human • cannot be quantified in normal accounting terms • Led to the concept of an incentive, • taking the form of a global “fixed grant for integration” NoEs

25. Financial regime (2) • A fixed grant for integration acting as an incentive, calculated on basis • of the degree of integration • of the total number of researchers • that make up the research capacities of the partners on the topic of the network • where a researcher has a PhD or at least four years research experience • with a bonus for registered doctoral students • of the characteristics of the field of research • of the joint programme of activities NoEs

26. Financial regime (3) • Average annual grant (example): • Illustration: network of 200 researchers supported over 5 years -> fixed grant of €17.5 million (plus bonus for registered doctoral students) Note - not dependant on location NoEs

27. Why are EU networks such a Powerful Paradigm ?Win-Win-Win? 1-Euro RC-B 1-Euro RC-C 1-Euro 1-Euro RC-A RC-D 1-Euro You invest: 1€ RC-E Other Res: 6 € RC-A 2-Euro EC adds: 5 € TOTAL:12€ R&D for1€

28. Measuring integration • In the proposal, participants define indicators for measuring progress towards integration • The main factors to be examined: • extent of mutual specialisation and mutual complementarity • sharing and development for common use of research infrastructure, equipment, tools and platforms • regular joint execution of research projects • interactive working through electronic communication systems • joint management of the knowledge portfolio • joint training programme (researchers-other key staff) • coherent management framework NoEs

29. Flexibility - Autonomy of Implementation • For the joint programme of activities, 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 activities • For changes in the network partnership • Partnership may itself decide to take in new partners (without additional funding) • Commission may decide to launch calls to add partners (with additional funding) NoEs

30. Elements to be looked at • Demonstrated need for structuring • description of fragmentation in the topic • existence of excellent capacities in Europe in the topic • network of excellence could constitute an answer to the fragmentation problem identified for that subject • Features of the network planned • composition of the partnership: the presence key actors • potential synergies/complementarity/specialisation • quality /degree of integration proposed • Viability of the network beyond the period • awareness of high-decision level representatives of the participating organisations: strong lasting commitment • security regarding network’s funding beyond the period NoEs

31. Characteristics of Instruments

32. Overview of Financing Schemes Grant for integration Grant to the budget Grant as a lump sum Networks of Excellence  Integrated Projects  Targeted research projects  Specific Research activities for SMEs  Integrated initiatives for Infrastructure  Actions to promote human resources and mobility   Coordination actions  Specific support actions  

33. ONE THING IS FOR CERTAIN The future of the new Europe is built on the success of our NETWORKING. Interconnected Communities whose aims and objectives are inextricably linked, whose future well being is tied by mutual trust and respect are secure and strong Communities. Science can lead the way. YOU can set example

34. More Information ? Use the one “nearest” to you • Katarzyna Lazarz: klazarz@ps.pl • Elzbieta Ksiazek: ksiazek@ppnt.poznan.pl • Primary NCPs : 16 Thematic for PolandCoordination of national NCPs by Andrzej SIEMASZKO, at asiemasz@ipp.gov.pl • (details on http://www.cordis.lu/fp6/ncp.htm) • General EU information - http://europa.eu.int • General information on R&D - http://europa.eu.int/comm/research • All about FP6 - http://www.cordis.lu/fp6 • General Information requests - research@cec.eu.int • G O O D L U C K