FP6 New Instruments: Integrated Projects & Networks of Excellence

1. “FP6 New instruments” Integrated projects Networks of excellence Helsinki, FP 6 Launching Conference, 26 November 2002

2. 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

3. Principles guiding their design Simplificationand streamlining • reduction of administrative burden and speed up procedures, especially time-to-contract Flexibilityand 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

4. Classification of the instruments

5. 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

6. 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

7. “FP6 Integrated Projects” An instrument for supporting objective-driven research of European dimension

8. Purpose of Integrated Projects Designed to generate the knowledgerequired to implement the priority thematic areas of FP6 • by integrating thecritical massof activities andresources needed • to achieveambitious, clearly defined scientific and technologicalobjectives Essentially an instrument for supportingobjective-driven researchof a European dimension

9. IP- Activities May cover thefull research spectrum • must contain objective-drivenresearch • 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

10. Critical mass Resources: those needed to achieve its ambitious objectives • butno 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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 • changes decided by the consortium (no additional funding) • calls launched by the Commission (with additional funding)

14. “FP6 Networks of excellence” An instrument for tackling the fragmentation of European research

15. Strengthen Europe’s excellenceon 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 fragmentationof European research where the main deliverable is a durable structuring and shaping of how research is carried out in Europe Spreading excellencebeyond its partners NoE Objectives

16. A range ofneworre-orientedactivities: 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 NoE Joint programme of activities

17. NoE Critical mass Expertise: this needed to achieve its ambitious objectives • variable from topic to topic • butno 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

18. A fixed grant for integration, acting as an incentive, calculated on basis: of the degree ofintegration of the total number ofresearchers of the characteristics of thefieldof research of thejoint programme of activities with a bonus for registereddoctoral students NoE Financial regime(1)

19. Theaverage annual grantto a network could vary with the number of researchers as follows: NoE Financial regime(2)

20. Annual payments of the grant will be paid on the basis ofresults depending on a progressiveadvance 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 NoE Payments regime

21. 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 • critical mass (activities, resources) • effectiveness of knowledge management • quality of project management • changes decided by the consortium (no additional funding) • calls launched by the Commission (with additional funding)

22. 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

23. Demonstratedneedfor 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? Reminder Main NoE features(1)

24. 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? Reminder Main NoE features(2)

25. Viabilityof 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? Reminder Main NoE features(3)

26. 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) • involvement ofexternal expertsat all stages

27. 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” leonidas.karapiperis@cec.eu.int christos.profilis@cec.eu.int colette.renier@cec.eu.int More information?