11 October Integrated Projects (IP) “FP6 Integrated Projects” A provisional description of integrated projects as an instrument for implementing the priority themes of the Sixth Framework Programme (as of October 2002) europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6/networks-ip.html

2 Integrated Projects (IP) 11 October 2002 A wider range of better differentiated instruments New instruments UIntegrated projects (IP) UNetworks of excellence (NoE) UArticle 169 (joint implementation of national programmes) Traditional instruments USpecific targeted research projects UCo-ordination actions USpecific support actions

3 Integrated Projects (IP) 11 October 2002 Principles guiding their design USimplification and streamlining +to minimise the overheads for all concerned whether applicant, contractor or the Commission +to speed up procedures, especially time-to-contract UFlexibility and adaptability +to enable instruments to be applicable throughout the priority themes +to enable projects to evolve UIncreased management autonomy +to eliminate unnecessary micro-management UWhile preserving public accountability and protecting interests of the Community

4 Integrated Projects (IP) 11 October 2002 Classification of the instruments

5 Integrated Projects (IP) 11 October 2002 Instruments to be used in priority UCalls for proposals will identify which instruments are to be used, which have priority, and for what UFrom the outset, IPs and NoE will be the priority means +for implementing those themes where it is already deemed appropriate +while maintaining the use of specific targeted research projects and coordination actions UIn 2004, the Commission will arrange an independent evaluation of the use of the instruments +may lead to an adjustment of their relative weightings

6 Integrated Projects (IP) 11 October 2002 Purpose of IPs UDesigned 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 of a European dimension

7 Integrated Projects (IP) 11 October 2002 Activities UActivities 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 will also be an essential feature +the whole carried out in a coherent management framework

8 Integrated Projects (IP) 11 October 2002 What is the scale of critical mass (I)? UConcerning 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, provided necessary ambition and critical mass is achieved

9 Integrated Projects (IP) 11 October 2002 What is the scale of critical mass (II)? UConcerning its 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 UConcerning its duration: typically three to five years +but more if necessary to deliver the objectives

1010 Integrated Projects (IP) 11 October 2002 Financial regime UCommunity support will be in the form of a “grant to the budget” UPaid as a contribution to actual costs +that are necessary and economic for the project +that are recorded in the accounts of the participants  or, when provided for in the contract, in the accounts of third parties +that exclude indirect taxes, duties, interest… UAnnually, each participant to provide a summary cost statement supported by: +certification of total costs by an independent auditor +management-level justification of costs

1 Integrated Projects (IP) 11 October 2002 Cost models UA single family of three closely related cost models +FC: all actual direct and indirect 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 costs (excluding subcontracting) to cover related indirect costs UEach organisation may use only one of the models for all its FP6 participations, where they are relevant  The same cost methodologies will be used for all instruments implemented through ‘grant to the budget’

1212 Integrated Projects (IP) 11 October 2002 Rates of Community support UMaximum 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 UAC participants: supported at up to 100% for all components of the project (except for consortium management which will be supported as under FCF) UFor IPs, no more than 7% of the Community contribution can be used to support consortium management costs reimbursed at up to 100%

1313 Integrated Projects (IP) 11 October 2002 Proposal submission UThrough calls for proposals +may be preceded by expressions of interest to help focus calls and assist in consortium building USimplified proposal-making +reflecting evolutionary nature of the project  summary description of activities for entire duration  detailed implementation plan only for first 18 months

1414 Integrated Projects (IP) 11 October 2002 Evaluation process UEvaluation by a strengthened peer-review system +possibly in stages, involving individual reviews, panel sessions, perhaps hearings of applicants UKey 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 +quality of the project and ‘knowledge’ management +critical mass in terms of activities and resources

1515 Integrated Projects (IP) 11 October 2002 UThe contract will specify the maximum Community contribution, but not its distribution among participants  consortium autonomy  elimination of major source of micro-management UAn annex contains +overall description of the project +detailed implementation plan only for first 18 months UAdvance payment: equal to 85% of the Community contribution anticipated for the first 18 months Initial contract and advance payment (I)

1616 Integrated Projects (IP) 11 October 2002 Initial contract and advance payment (II) USimplified signature procedure  faster entry into effect Uthe consortium designates a ‘coordinator’  liaison with Commission,  receives and distributes the grant UConsortium agreement is a prerequisite

1717 Integrated Projects (IP) 11 October 2002 Reporting and payments schedule UThe consortium submits annual report containing: +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 UUpon acceptance of above by the Commission:  final settlement of payment for period concerned (subject to any ex-post audit)  outstanding advance supplemented up to 85% of the anticipated Community contribution for following 18 months

1818 Integrated Projects (IP) 11 October 2002 Payments and reporting schedule (example of a 4 year contract) Activity report Reported costs Activity reportDetailed work plan Reported costsAdjusted advance Activity reportDetailed work plan Reported costsAdjusted advance Activity report Reported costs Detailed work plan Adjusted advance Detailed work plan Initial advance Months

1919 Integrated Projects (IP) 11 October 2002 Flexibility and autonomy of implementation UFor 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 UFor 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

2020 Integrated Projects (IP) 11 October 2002 Monitoring and audits URobust output monitoring by the Commission, involving external experts at all stages  annual review  mid-term or milestone review,and  final review UCommission may also carry out audits  financial (at least one per IP)  technical  technological  ethical

2121 Integrated Projects (IP) 11 October 2002 More Information on the instruments URegularly updated website on the instruments: europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6/networks-ip.html UBrochures and leaflets on the new instruments  Available at Heysel Conference and on Europa as above UPresentation slides  on Europa as above