European Commission Research 1 The 6th FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME - New instruments for Old Mike W Rogers European Commission with thanks to my colleagues who attended the FP6 Launch Conference!

European Commission Research 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

European Commission Research 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.

European Commission Research 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.

European Commission Research 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

European Commission Research 6 Integrated Projects “Vertically self sufficient projects to make a strategic impact” IPs

European Commission Research 7 Purpose of IPs Designed to generate knowledge –integrating the critical mass of activities and resources needed –to achieve ambitious, clearly defined scientific and technological objectives with an identifiable European dimension IPs

European Commission Research 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

European Commission Research 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 millions € no minimum threshold, provided necessary ambition and critical mass is achieved IPs

European Commission Research 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

European Commission Research 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

European Commission Research 12 Cost models A single family of three closely related cost models –F–FC : all actual direct and indirect costs;(Full Costs) –F–FCF :all actual direct costs plus 20% of these direct costs (excluding subcontracting) to cover related indirect costs; and –A–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

European Commission Research 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

European Commission Research 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

European Commission Research 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 –quality of the project and ‘knowledge’ management –critical mass in terms of activities and resources Link to Annual/Rolling Review basis IPs

European Commission Research 16 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 Initial contract and advance payment IPs

European Commission Research 17 Reporting and payments schedule Annual report containing: –an outline of previous 12 months’ activities –financial documents on costs incurred (including cost certificates and management-level justification) –detailed implementation plan and associated financial plan for the following 18 months, to be reviewed Upon acceptance of above by the Commission: final settlement of payment for period concerned outstanding advance supplemented up to 85% of the anticipated Community contribution for following (rolling) 18 months IPs

European Commission Research 18 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 IPs

European Commission Research 19 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

European Commission Research 20 Monitoring and audits Robust output monitoring by the Commission, involving external experts at all stages annual review mid-term or milestone review,and final review Commission may also carry out audits financial (at least one per IP) technical technological ethical IPs

European Commission Research 21 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

European Commission Research 22 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 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 –sp re ad ex ce ll en ce beyond the partners NoEs

European Commission Research 23 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

European Commission Research 24 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

European Commission Research 25 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 partners NoEs

European Commission Research 26 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

European Commission Research 27 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

European Commission Research 28 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) NoEs

European Commission Research 29 Payments regime Annual payments of the grant will be paid on the basis of results –i.e. will depend on progressive advancement towards a durable integration of organisational research profiles –with an additional check that costs of at least the value of the grant were incurred in implementing the joint programme of activity (So if your costs bases are low, then you can take on extra tasks) IMPORTANT FOR ORGANISATIONS WITH AMPLE R&D CAPACITY BUT FEW RESOURCES NoEs

European Commission Research 30 Why are EU networks such a Powerful Paradigm RC-D RC-C RC-A RC-B RC-A RC-E 1-Euro 1-Euro 2-Euro Other Res: 6 € EC adds: 5 € You invest: 1€ TOTAL:12€ R&D for1€

European Commission Research 31 Evaluation process (1) Calls for proposals normally preceded by expressions of interest Simplified proposal-making –reflecting evolutionary nature of the network Evaluation by a strengthened peer review system –in stages, possibly involving individual reviews, panel sessions, hearings of applicants... Key issues to be addressed during evaluation potential impact on strengthening Europe’s excellence –collective excellence of the network’s members –extent, depth and lasting nature of the integration –contribution to spreading excellence –management and governance of the network NoEs

European Commission Research 32 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

European Commission Research 33 The contract will specify the maximum Community contribution, but not its distribution among participants gives consortium autonomy elimination of major source of micro-management An annex contains: overall description of the network –detailed joint programme of activity only for first 18 months Advance payment: = 85% of the Community contribution anticipated for the first 18 months (I.e.16m costs) Simplified signature procedure - faster entry into force The consortium designates a ‘coordinator’ liaison with Commission, receives and distributes the grant Consortium agreement is a prerequisite Initial Contract, Advance Payment NoEs

European Commission Research 34 Reporting and payments schedule The consortium will submit to the Commission for its approval an annual report containing: –an outline of previous 12 months’ activities –financial documents on the costs incurred in implementing the JPA (including cost certificates and management-level justification) –a detailed joint programme of activities for the following 18 months Upon acceptance of above, the outstanding advance will be supplemented up to 85% of the anticipated Community contribution for following 18 months NoEs

European Commission Research 35 Governance and monitoring A network’s governance must ensure institutional engagement by the partner organisations –through e.g. a “governing board” of senior representatives from the partners to oversee integration of the partners’ activities Robust output monitoring by the Commission, involving external experts at all stages –annual reviews basis for payment by results triggering a yellow flag / red flag, if a review faild –end-of-term review to assess impact of network on strengthening and spreading excellence NoEs

European Commission Research 36 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

European Commission Research 37 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

European Commission Research 38 Characteristics of Instruments

European Commission Research 39 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 Overview of Financing Schemes

European Commission Research 40 ONE THING IS FOR CERTAIN NETWORKING 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

European Commission Research 41 More Information ? Use the one “nearest” to you Katarzyna Lazarz: Elzbieta Ksiazek: Primary NCPs : 16 Thematic for Poland Coordination of national NCPs by Andrzej SIEMASZKO, at –(details onhttp:// General EU information - General information on R&D - All about FP6 - General Information requests - G O O D L U C K