Transcript Integrating activities - KPK :: 6. Program Ramowy UE

“FP6
New
instruments”
Integrated projects
Networks of excellence
Helsinki, FP 6 Launching Conference, 26
November 2002
26 November 2002
A wider range of better
differentiated instruments
for the thematic priorities
New instruments
Integrated projects
Networks of excellence
Article 169
Traditional instruments
Specific targeted research projects
Coordination actions
Specific support actions
2
Principles guiding their design
Simplification and streamlining
reduction of administrative burden and speed up procedures,
especially time-to-contract
Flexibility and adaptability
to enable instruments to be applicable throughout all the priority
themes and projects to evolve
Increased management autonomy
to eliminate unnecessary micro-management
While preserving public accountability and protecting
interests of the Community
3
Classification of the instruments
Instrument
Purpose
Primary
deliverable
Scale
IP
objectivedriven research
knowledge
med-high
NoE
tackle
fragmentation
structuring
med-high
Art. 169
joint MS
programmes
knowledge and/or
structuring
high
STREP
research
knowledge
low-med
CA
coordination
coordination
low-med
SSA
support
support
low-med
4
Instruments to be used in priority (I)
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
5
Instruments to be used in priority (2)
In 2004, the Commission will arrange an independent
evaluation of the use of the instruments
may lead to an adjustment of their relative
weightings
6
“FP6
Integrated
Projects”
An instrument for supporting objectivedriven research of European dimension
26 November 2002
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 objectivedriven research of a European dimension
8
IP- Activities
May cover the full research spectrum
must 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
9
Critical mass
Resources: those needed to achieve its ambitious
objectives
but no minimum threshold, provided necessary
ambition and critical mass is achieved
Partnership: minimum of 3 participants from 3 different
States, of which at least 2 should be M S or ACC
but in practice substantially more
Duration: typically 3 to 5 years
but more if necessary to deliver the objectives
1
0
Financial regime (I)
A Community “grant to the budget” paid as a
contribution to actual costs
necessary to the project
determined in accordance with the normal accounting rules of
the participants
recorded in their accounts
excluding indirect taxes, interests...an outline of previous 12
months’ activities
Annual settlement of payments
summary cost statement by participant
certification by independent auditor
justification of the costs incurred
1
1
Financial regime (2)
3 simplified cost methodologies
 full costs (FC)
full costs flat rate (FCF)
additional costs (ACF)
Maximum rates of support (FC-FCF participants)
research components: 50 %
demonstration components: 35 %
management and training: 100 %
ACF participants: 100 % of additional costs for all
components
1
2
Evaluation process
Calls for proposals ( possibly preceded by calls for
expressions of interest)
Simplified proposal making (evolutionary nature of the
project)
Strengthened peer review system (stages, individual
reviews, panel sessions, hearings…)
Key evaluation criteria
scale of ambition and potential impact
critical mass (activities, resources)
effectiveness of knowledge management
quality of project management
1
3
“FP6
Networks
of
excellence”
An instrument for tackling the fragmentation of
European research
26 November 2002
NoE Objectives
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
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 partners
26 November 2002
NoE Joint programme of activities
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, equipment
reinforced electronic communication systems
Joint Research programme:to support the network’s goals
Activities to spread excellence: training, dissemination and
communication
within a unified management framework
26 November 2002
NoE Critical mass
Expertise: this
objectives
needed
to
achieve
its
ambitious
variable from topic to topic
but no minimum threshold, provided necessary
ambition and critical mass is achieved
Partnership: minimum of 3 participants from 3 different
States, of which at least 2 should be M S or ACC
but in general at least 6
Duration: typically 5 years, possibly more but no more
than 7 years
1
7
NoE
Financial regime(1)
A fixed grant for integration, acting as an incentive,
calculated on basis:
of the degree of integration
of the total number of researchers
of the characteristics of the field of research
of the joint programme of activities
with a bonus for registered doctoral students
26 November 2002
NoE
Financial regime(2)
The average annual grant to a network could vary
with the number of researchers as follows:
50 researchers
100 researchers
150 researchers
250 researchers
500 researchers
1000 researchers and above
26 November 2002
€ 1 million/year
€ 2 million/year
€ 3 million/year
€ 4 million/year
€ 5 million/year
€ 6 million/year
NoE
Payments regime
Annual payments of the grant will be paid on the
basis of results
depending on a progressive advance towards a
durable integration
with an additional check that costs of at least the
value of the grant were incurred in implementing
the joint programme of activities
26 November 2002
NoE
Evaluation process
Calls for proposals ( possibly preceded by calls for
expressions of interest)
Simplified proposal making (evolutionary nature of the
network)
Strengthened peer review system (stages, individual
reviews, panel sessions, hearings…)
Key evaluation criteria
potential impact on strengthening European excellence
collective excellence of the network’s members
extent, depth and lasting nature of integration
contribution to spreading excellence
management and governance of the network
2
1
NoE
Governance and monitoring
Institutional engagement by partners organisations
“governing council” (senior representatives of
the partners): overseeing the integration of the
partners’ activities
Robust output monitoring by the Commission,
assisted by external experts
 annual reviews (basis for payment, yellow
flag/red flag)
end-of-term review: assessment of impact and
lasting character
2
2
Reminder
Main NoE features(1)
Demonstrated need for structuring
description of fragmentation on the topic
existence of excellent capacities in Europe in the
topic
 Is there a real need for a structuring
intervention?
26 November 2002
Reminder
Main NoE features(2)
Characteristics of the network planned
composition of the partnership: presence of key
excellent actors
potential synergies, complementarities, potential
specialisation among the members
quality/degree of integration planned
 Is there a real need for a structuring
intervention?
26 November 2002
Reminder
Main NoE features(3)
Viability of the network during and beyond the
period
awareness of high decision level representatives
of the participating organisations: strong
commitment
security regarding network’s funding, particularly
beyond the period
 Will the network constitute a durable answer
to the problem identified?
26 November 2002
Flexibility and
autonomy
Implementation plan/JPA: annual submission of the
plan for the coming 18 months, possible updating of the
overall plan
Community contribution: distribution among partners
and activities by the consortium in an autonomous
manner
Changes in the partnership
on decision of the consortium (no additional
funding)
following a call by the Commission (with
additional funding)
2
6
More information?
Regularly updated website on the instruments
Brochures and leaflets on the new instruments
Slides as presented at Heysel conference
europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6/networks-ip.html
“instruments team”
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
26 November 2002