the sixth framework programme n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
The Sixth Framework Programme (2002-2006) PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
The Sixth Framework Programme (2002-2006)

Loading in 2 Seconds...

  share
play fullscreen
1 / 39
kermit-wooten

The Sixth Framework Programme (2002-2006) - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 Views
Download Presentation
The Sixth Framework Programme (2002-2006)
An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. The Sixth Framework Programme The Sixth Framework Programme (2002-2006) A new Research Framework Programme (FP) designed to help realise the European Research Area (ERA) www.cordis.lu/fp6/europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6/ 1

  2. The Sixth Framework Programme What is the European Research Area? • Long-term goal of ERA, launched at Lisbon summit 2½ years ago • to create a true “internal market” for research in Europe • Why do we need ERA? • Europe will fall far short of its economic potential unless it reverses decades of technological underperformance • but for that to happen, Europe must first tackle deep-rooted structural weaknesses in its research and innovation systems • hence ERA 2

  3. The Sixth Framework Programme What are these structural weaknesses? • Underinvestment in the research system • both financial and human • particularly by the business sector • Unfriendly environment for research and innovation • regulatory shortcomings • financial weaknesses • weak culture of entrepreneurship • networking failures • unfriendly social environment… • Excessive fragmentation of public research • coupled to low levels of cooperation and coordination between countries on policies and programmes 3

  4. The Sixth Framework Programme Why FP6 became a tool to realise ERA? • The FP is the only funding arm of EU research policy • primary mission of new FP must therefore be to help realise ERA • Previous FPs had, however, a different mission • were not designed to tackle our structural weaknesses • were instead designed to support network-building and high quality research • though often failed to mobilise the critical mass needed to achieve ambitious objectives of European dimension • were also overly complex and excessively bureaucratic in their implementation • Therefore, to address its new mission, the concept of the FP had to be totally rethought 4

  5. The Sixth Framework Programme Key features of FP6 (1) • 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 new more effective instruments capable of mobilising the activities and resources necessary to achieve ambitious objectives of European dimension • integrated projects, networks of excellence, Article 169 Note: these new instruments are the principal innovation in the thematic components of FP6 5

  6. The Sixth Framework Programme Key features of FP6 (2) • Better balance between objective-driven thematic research and actions to reinforce Europe’s research base • expanded and better targeted training & mobility actions • new bottom-up action to support emerging S&T (“NEST”) • 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

  7. The Sixth Framework Programme Key features of FP6 (3) • 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

  8. The Sixth Framework Programme FP6 budget • €17.5 billion (compared to €14.96 billion in FP5) • an increase of 9% in real terms (a satisfactory result) € billion Focusing and integrating Community 13.345 research (“thematic”) Structuring ERA (“underpinning”) 2.605 Strengthening the foundations of ERA 320(“coordinating”)Euratom (“nuclear”) 1.230 8

  9. The Sixth Framework Programme Structure of FP6* • excluding Euratom (7%)of which, 15% for SMEs 9

  10. The Sixth Framework Programme Timetable of FP6 • February 2001 Commission proposals for FP6 • March 2002 Invitation to submit EoIs • June 2002 EP/Council co-decision on FP6 • September 2002 Results of EoI exercise published • September 2002 Council decisions on SPs • 17 December 2002 Initial calls for proposals • March-June 2003 First deadlines 10

  11. Instruments for implementing FP6 priority themes “Instruments for implementing FP6 priority themes” A classification of the instruments available to implement the priority thematic areas of the Sixth Framework Programme europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6/networks-ip.html 1

  12. Instruments for implementing FP6 priority themes A wider range of better differentiated instruments • “New” instruments • integrated projects • networks of excellence • article 169 (joint implementation of national programmes) • “Traditional” instruments • specific targeted research projects • coordination actions • specific support actions 2

  13. Instruments for implementing FP6 priority themes Principles guiding their design • Simplification and streamlining • to minimise the overheads for all concerned • to speed up procedures, especially time-to-contract • Increased legal and financial security • to avoid weaknesses of FP5 instruments • Flexibility and adaptability • to enable projects to adapt to changing circumstances, both in the science and in the partnership • Increased management autonomy • to eliminate unnecessary micromanagement • While preserving public accountability and protecting interests of the Community 3

  14. Instruments for implementing FP6 priority themes Integrated projects • Designed to generate the knowledge required to implement the priority themes of FP6 • by integrating the critical mass of activities and resources needed • to achieve ambitious clearly defined scientific and technological objectives • Essentially therefore an instrument for supporting objective-driven research of a European dimension • where the main deliverable is new knowledge 4

  15. Instruments for implementing FP6 priority themes Networks of excellence • Designed to 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 • through a joint programme of activities • aimed primarily at creating a durable integration of the research capacities of the network partners • Essentially therefore an instrument for tackling the fragmentation of European research • where main deliverable is a durable structuring and shaping of how research is carried out in Europe • Each NoE also has a mission to spread excellence • where training is an essential component 5

  16. Instruments for implementing FP6 priority themes Article 169 • Enables the Community to participate in research programmes carried out jointly by a number of MS • Potentially a most powerful instrument • 169s integrate national programmes • However, may be difficult to use in large numbers • each requires a co-initiative by national programmes and the Commission to generate a proposal • followed by long and complex decision-making, involving a co-decision of Parliament and Council • So far untried • the Commission has now presented a pilot proposal 6

  17. Instruments for implementing FP6 priority themes “Traditional” instruments • Retained to smooth the transition from FP5 to FP6 • particularly for smaller research actors, including SMEs, and for participants from candidate countries • Also to support research activities of more limited scope and ambition • Three “traditional” instruments • specific targeted research projects • evolved form of FP5 RTD and demonstration projects • coordination actions • evolved form of FP5 concerted actions/thematic networks • specific support actions • evolved form of FP5 accompanying measures 7

  18. Instruments for implementing FP6 priority themes Classification of the instruments 8

  19. FP6 Integrated Projects “FP6 Integrated Projects” A new instrument for supporting objective-driven research of European dimension (as of November 2002) europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6/networks-ip.html 1

  20. FP6 Integrated Projects What is their purpose? • Designed to generate the knowledge required to implement the priority themes • by integrating the critical mass of activities and resources needed • to achieve ambitious clearly defined scientific and technological objectives • Essentially therefore an instrument for supporting objective-driven research of a European dimension • where the main deliverable is new knowledge 2

  21. FP6 Integrated Projects What activities can be supported? • Activities integrated by an IP may cover the full research spectrum • must contain a research component • may contain technological development and demonstration components • may contain a training component • must ensure the effective management of knowledge, and when appropriate its exploitation • all within a unified project management structure 3

  22. FP6 Integrated Projects What is the scale of critical mass? • Concerning resources: each IP must assemble the critical mass needed to achieve its ambitious goals • activities integrated may range up to € several tens of millions • but no minimum threshold, provided necessary ambition and critical mass is achieved • Concerning its partnership: minimum of three participants from three different countries • but in practice likely to be substantially more • Concerning its duration: typically three to five years • but more if necessary to deliver its objectives 4

  23. FP6 Integrated Projects What type of 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 • determined according to the usual accounting conventions of each participant • recorded in the accounts of the participants • or, if provided in the contract, in the accounts of third parties • excluding indirect taxes, interest… (Note: As each participant is free to use its own accounting conventions, there will be no pre-defined cost categories as in FP5.) 5

  24. FP6 Integrated Projects What are the cost models? • A family of three simplified cost models • FC: full direct and full indirect costs • FCF: full direct costs plus 20% (excluding subcontracts) for related indirect costs • ACF: additional direct costs plus 20% (excluding subcontracts) for related indirect costs • The FCF model will be an option for SMEs only • The ACF model is available only for public bodies and individuals (Note: An organisation will normally use the same model in all FP6 instruments.) 6

  25. FP6 Integrated Projects What are the rates of support? • For full-cost participants, maximum rates are • 50% for RTD components • 35% for any demonstration component • 100% for any training component • 100% for consortium management • ACF participants are supported at up to 100% of additional costs for all components of the project • except for consortium management, which may be at 100% of full costs • Consortium management costs chargeable at 100% may not exceed 7% of the Community contribution 7

  26. FP6 Integrated Projects What is the payments regime? • Annual advances • Annual settlement of payments • each participant to provide a summary cost statement supported by • a management-level justification of costs • a certificate by an independent auditor stating the total costs incurred 8

  27. FP6 Integrated Projects 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 the Community contribution • the contract will not specify its distribution between participants nor between activities • 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) 9

  28. FP6 Integrated Projects 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 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 Months 10

  29. FP6 Integrated Projects Evaluation process • Simplified proposal-making • reflecting evolutionary nature of the project • Evaluation by a strengthened peer-review system • possibly involving two-stage submission and hearings of applicants… • Key evaluation criteria include • S&T excellence of the proposed project • scale of ambition and potential impact • critical mass in terms of both activities and resources • effectiveness of knowledge management • quality of project management 11

  30. Networks of Excellence “FP6 Networks of Excellence” A new instrument for tackling the fragmentation of European research (as of November 2002) europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6/networks-ip.html 1

  31. Networks of Excellence What is their purpose? • Designed to 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 • through a joint programme of activities • aimed primarily at creating a durable integration of the research capacities of the network partners • while at the same time advancing knowledge on the topic • Essentially therefore an instrument for 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 also has a mission to spread excellence 2

  32. Networks of Excellence What is a joint programme of activities? • The JPA consists of a range of “additional” activities • integrating activities • coordinated programming of the partners’ activities • sharing of research platforms/tools/facilities/infrastructure • joint management of the knowledge portfolio • staff exchanges, possibly relocation of staff and equipment • reinforced electronic communications • joint research activities • a programme of joint research to support the network’s goals • activities to spread excellence • training programme of researchers and other key staff • dissemination and communication • all within a unified management structure 3

  33. Networks of Excellence What is the scale of critical mass? • 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 • Concerning its partnership: in general at least six • legal minimum of three from three different countries • Concerning duration of Community support: typically five years • but up to seven years, if justified to create a durable integration 4

  34. Networks of Excellence What type of financial regime? • 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 • 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 5

  35. Networks of Excellence Illustrative grant calculation • 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 any bonus for doctoral students) 6

  36. Networks of Excellence What is the payments regime? • Annual advances • 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 reviews, involving external experts • triggering a yellow flag/red flag, if a review is failed 7

  37. Networks of Excellence 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 partnership will have freedom to distribute it between partners and between activities • For changes in the network partnership • 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) 8

  38. Networks of Excellence Evaluation process • Simplified proposal-making • reflecting evolutionary nature of the network • Evaluation by a strengthened peer review system • possible two-stage submission, hearings of applicants… • Key evaluation criteria include • potential impact on strengthening Europe’s excellence • extent, depth and lasting nature of the expected integration • ability of the JPA to deliver this integration • collective excellence of the network partners • contribution to spreading excellence • management and governance of the network 9

  39. Networks of Excellence 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 10