1. 24 April 2003 FP6 and the new Thematic Priority Instruments FP6 Launch Conference - Istanbul Leonidas Karapiperis European Commission Research DG

2. 2 24 April 2003 The ERA process (I) Central component of Lisbon 2000 strategy to transform Europe into the world’s most competitive knowledge-based economy by 2010 Long-term goal of ERA, launched in 2000  to create a true “internal market” for research in Europe  to achieve a true co-ordination of national research policies

3. 3 24 April 2003 FP6 as a tool to realise ERA As the funding arm of EU research policy, FP’s primary mission must be to help realise ERA Previous FPs had, however, a different mission  were not designed to tackle our structural weaknesses  were, on the other hand, designed to support good research and network-building though often failed to mobilise critical mass  were also overly complex and bureaucratic Therefore, to address its new mission, the concept of the FP had to be totally rethought

4. 4 24 April 2003 Key features of FP6 (I) For its objective-driven thematic components  much greater concentration on a limited number of topics of strategic importance to Europe where the research needs to be carried out at the European level  using more effective instruments capable of mobilising the resources necessary to achieve ambitious objectives of European dimension integrated projects networks of excellence Article 169

5. 5 24 April 2003 Key features of FP6 (II) Better balance between objective-driven thematic research and actions to reinforce Europe’s research base  expanded and better targeted mobility and training actions  new bottom-up action to support emerging S&T  expanded support for research infrastructures  mainstreaming of most international cooperation, innovation and SME support measures  new science and society action  expanded range of measures to support open coordination in research policy-making  new scheme (“ERA-NET”) to support the networking and mutual opening of national programmes

6. 6 24 April 2003 Key features of FP6 (III) Simplified and streamlined implementation  to reduce overheads of participating  to speed up procedures  to increase flexibility and autonomy of contractors Full integration of the associated candidate countries  research is first policy area where these countries are fully integrated into the EU

7. 7 24 April 2003 FP6 budget €17.5 billion (compared to €14.96 billion in FP5)  an increase of 9% in real terms € billion Focusing and integrating Community 13.345 research (“thematic”) Structuring ERA (“horizontal”) 2.605 Strengthening the foundations of ERA 320 (“horizontal”) Euratom (“nuclear”) 1.230

8. 8 24 April 2003 Structure of FP6* Q excluding Euratom (7%)  of which, 15% for SMEs

9. 9 24 April 2003 Why participate? FP6 offers: a broad range of S&T opportunities Europe-wide contacts valuable partnerships enhanced mobility opportunities an international benchmark a considerable source of financial support

10. 10 24 April 2003 Instruments for implementing the thematic priorities (I) Wider range Better differentiation New instruments  Integrated projects (IP)  Networks of excellence (NoE)  Article 169 (joint implementation of national programmes)

11. 11 24 April 2003 Instruments for implementing the thematic priorities (II) Traditional instruments  Specific targeted research projects  Co-ordination actions  Specific support actions

12. 12 24 April 2003 Principles guiding their design (I) Simplification and streamlining  to minimise the overheads for all concerned whether applicant, contractor or the Commission  to speed up procedures, especially time-to-contract Flexibility and adaptability  to enable instruments to be applicable throughout the priority themes  to enable projects to evolve

13. 13 24 April 2003 Principles guiding their design (II) Increased management autonomy  to eliminate unnecessary micro-management While preserving public accountability and protecting interests of the Community

14. 14 24 April 2003 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 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 Independent evaluation of use of instruments in 2004

15. 15 24 April 2003 New instruments  Integrated projects (IP)  Networks of excellence (NoE)  Article 169 (joint implementation of national programmes)

16. 16 24 April 2003 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

17. 17 24 April 2003 Meaning of integration in IPs Each IP should comprise a coherent set of component parts Internal architecture may vary depending on topic, scope and managerial approach of each IP Forms of integration:  “vertical” - full value chain of stakeholders  “horizontal” - multidisciplinarity  “activities” - RTD, demonstration, training…  “sectoral” - private/public  “financial” - synergy with other schemes (EIB, Eureka)

18. 18 24 April 2003 What is the scale of critical mass (I)? Concerning 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 million euro  but no minimum threshold, provided necessary ambition and critical mass is achieved Concerning its duration: typically 3 to 5 years  but more if necessary to deliver the objectives

19. 19 24 April 2003 What is the scale of critical mass (II)? Concerning the partnership: minimum of 3 participants from 3 different Member States or Associated States, of which at least 2 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 entities from certain groups of countries

20. 20 24 April 2003 Activities 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 will also be an essential feature  the whole carried out in a coherent management framework

21. 21 24 April 2003 Proposal submission Submission through calls for proposals  may be preceded by expressions of interest to help focus calls and assist in consortium building Simplified proposal-making  requiring only sufficient “management-level” detail  reflecting evolutionary nature of the project outline implementation plan for entire duration detailed implementation plan only for first 18 months Possibility of two-stage submission

22. 22 24 April 2003 Proposal evaluation Peer-review by independent experts on basis of published criteria Proposal evaluation will address the following set of issues:  relevance to the objectives of the programme  potential impact  S&T excellence  quality of the consortium  quality of the management  mobilisation of resources

23. 23 24 April 2003 Reporting and payments schedule (I) The consortium submits annual report containing:  an outline of previous 12 months’ activities  financial documents on the costs incurred (including audit certificates and management- level justification)  a detailed implementation plan and associated financial plan for the following 18 months

24. 24 24 April 2003 Reporting and payments schedule (II) Upon 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

25. 25 24 April 2003 Payments and reporting schedule (example of a 4 year IP contract) Activity report Reported costs Activity reportDetailed implem. plan Reported costsAdjusted advance Activity reportDetailed implementation plan Reported costsAdjusted advance Activity report Reported costs Detailed implementation plan Adjusted advance Detailed implementation plan Initial advance 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 Months

26. 26 24 April 2003 Flexibility and autonomy of implementation (I) 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 allocation of the Community grant  the contract will not specify its distribution between participants nor between activities

27. 27 24 April 2003 Flexibility and autonomy of implementation (II) 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

28. 28 24 April 2003 Monitoring Robust monitoring of each IP by the Commission by one or possibly a team of project officers through  annual reviews  mid-term or milestone review (optional)  final review involving external experts at all stages

29. 29 24 April 2003 New instruments  Integrated projects  Networks of excellence (NoE)  Article 169 (joint implementation of national programmes)

30. 30 24 April 2003 Purpose of Networks of Excellence 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 (JPA) 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 members

31. 31 24 April 2003 What is the scale of critical mass? (I) Concerning expertise: the network must assemble the critical mass needed to achieve its ambitious goals  will vary from topic to topic  larger networks may involve several hundreds of researchers but networks may be much smaller, provided necessary ambition and critical mass is achieved

32. 32 24 April 2003 What is the scale of critical mass? (II) Concerning its partnership: in general at least six  legal minimum as for IPs Concerning duration of Community support: typically five years  but up to seven years, if justified to create a durable integration

33. 33 24 April 2003 The Joint Programme of Activities (I) A range of new or re-oriented joint activities, executed within a coherent management frame 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 info/communication networks

34. 34 24 April 2003 The Joint Programme of Activities (II) A programme of jointly executed research to support the network’s goals, e.g.:  development of new research tools and platforms for common use  generating new knowledge to fill gaps in or to extend the collective knowledge portfolio

35. 35 24 April 2003 The Joint Programme of Activities (III) Activities to spread excellence within and beyond the network  training researchers and other key staff  dissemination and communication activities  networking activities to help transfer knowledge to teams external to the network  promoting the exploitation of the results generated within the network innovation-related activities take-up activities (especially for SMEs)

36. 36 24 April 2003 What type of financial regime? (I) Community support targeted at overcoming the barriers to a durable integration  barriers are mainly organisational, cultural and human cannot be quantified in normal accounting terms

37. 37 24 April 2003 What type of financial regime? (II) Has led to the concept of providing an incentive for integration  taking the form of a fixed grant  calculated mainly on basis of 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

38. 38 24 April 2003 What type of financial regime? (III) The average annual grant to a network could vary with the number of “researchers” as follows: In this illustration, a network of 200 “researchers” supported over 5 years would be granted €17.5 million (plus €4000/y for doctoral students up to 10% of grant in respect of researchers)

39. 39 24 April 2003 What is the payments regime? Annual advances for subsequent 18 month period Annual settlements paid on the basis of results  i.e. will depend on a progressive advance towards a durable integration  with an additional check that costs greater than the value of the grant are incurred in implementing the JPA A results-based payments regime necessitates a robust system of output monitoring  with annual reporting  with annual reviews, involving external experts triggering a yellow flag/red flag, if a review is failed

40. 40 24 April 2003 Proposal submission Submission through calls for proposals  may be preceded by expressions of interest to help focus calls and assist in consortium building Simplified proposal-making  requiring only sufficient “management-level” detail  reflecting evolutionary nature of the project outline JPA for entire duration detailed JPA only for first 18 months Possibility of two-stage submission

41. 41 24 April 2003 Proposal evaluation Peer-review by independent experts on basis of published criteria Proposal evaluation will address the following set of issues:  relevance to the objectives of the programme  potential impact  excellence of the participants  degree of integration and the joint programme of activities  organisation and management

42. 42 24 April 2003 Flexibility and autonomy 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 contract will not specify its distribution between participants nor between activities For changes in the consortium composition  the partnership may itself decide to take in new partners (though without additional financing)  the Commission may decide to launch calls to add partners (with additional financing)

43. 43 24 April 2003 Governance of the network A network’s governance must ensure institutional engagement by the partner organisations  through e.g. a “governing council” of senior representatives from the partners to facilitate the integration of the partners’ activities

44. 24 April 2003 FP6 traditional Thematic Priority Instruments FP6 Launch Conference - Istanbul Leonidas Karapiperis European Commission Research DG

45. 45 24 April 2003 Traditional instruments  Specific targeted research projects  Co-ordination actions  Specific support actions

46. 46 24 April 2003 Purpose of Specific targeted projects (STREP) 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 Differ from IPs in scale of ambition, degree of integration

47. 47 24 April 2003 Activities of STREPs May combine any of the following types of activities:  Targeted, well defined and precisely focused research and technological development  Demonstration components (as appropriate)  Project management

48. 48 24 April 2003 Purpose of Co-ordination Activities (CA) Designed to promote and support the networking and co-ordination of research and innovation activities at national, regional and European level  of a range of research and innovation actors  in order to achieve improved integration of European research

49. 49 24 April 2003 Activities of CAs Within a coherent management frame, may include: Organisation of conferences 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, management of joint or common initiatives

50. 50 24 April 2003 Purpose of Specific Support Activities (SSA) SSAs are designed to: Complement the other FP6 instruments Prepare future Community RTD policy activities Stimulate, encourage and facilitate the participation in the activities of the priority thematic areas of  SMEs  small research teams  organisations from the candidate countries

51. 51 24 April 2003 Activities of SSAs Within a coherent management frame, may include: Conferences, seminars Working groups and expert groups Studies, analyses Trans-national technology transfer and take-up related services Development of research or innovation strategies Dissemination, information activities High level scientific awards and competitions

52. 52 24 April 2003 Scale of the traditional instruments (I) Concerning resources: each project must assemble the resources needed to achieve its objectives  value of activities may range up to a few million euro for STREPs several hundred thousand euro (in rare cases, millions) for Cas and SSAs Concerning its duration:  typically, 2-3 years for STREPs, CAs  from a few months up to 2-3 years for SSAs

53. 53 24 April 2003 Scale of the traditional instruments (II) Concerning the partnership: minimum of 3 participants from 3 different Member States or Associated States, of which at least 2 should be Member States or Associated candidate countries  there can be only one participant in SSAs  SME participation is strongly encouraged  ‘third country’ participants may be included, with a possibility of Community financial support for entities from certain groups of countries

54. 54 24 April 2003 Proposal submission and evaluation Submission through calls for proposals Simplified proposal-making  requiring sufficient “management-level” detail for whole duration of the project Possibility of two-stage submission Peer-review on basis of published criteria

55. 55 24 April 2003 Proposal evaluation - STREPS - Evaluation will address the following set of issues:  relevance to the objectives of the programme  S&T excellence  potential impact  quality of the consortium  quality of the management  mobilisation of resources

56. 56 24 April 2003 Proposal evaluation - CAs - Proposal evaluation will address the following set of issues:  relevance to the objectives of the programme  quality of the co-ordination  quality of the consortium  quality of the management  mobilisation of resources

57. 57 24 April 2003 Proposal evaluation - SSAs - Proposal evaluation will address the following set of issues:  relevance to the objectives of the programme  quality of the support action  potential impact  quality of the management  mobilisation of resources

58. 58 24 April 2003 Implementation The consortium proposes a detailed work plan for the whole duration of the project For the allocation of the Community grant, the contract will not specify its distribution between participants nor between activities Changes in the consortium composition are possible (but expected to be a rare occurence)  subject to Commission approval  without additional funding

59. 59 24 April 2003 REPORTING AND PAYMENTS SCHEDULE (example of a 3 year contract with two 18-month reporting periods) Reported costs Periodic activity report Reported costs Detailed work plan Initial advance 0 6 12 18 24 36 Months Second advance Periodic activity report Final reporting period First reporting period Start of the project

60. 60 24 April 2003 More Information on the instruments Regularly updated website on the instruments: europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6/instruments_en. html Brochures and leaflets on the new instruments (also available on Europa as above) Guide on “Participating in European Research” Cordis: www.lu/fp6