Participation & Dissemination Rules for the 6th Framework Programme 2002-2006 (EC)

1. Participation & DisseminationRules for the 6th Framework Programme2002-2006(EC) Jean-David MALO DG RTD - Unit A3

2. Legal Framework INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS EC TREATY PARTICIPATION AND DISSEMINATION RULES FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME Other relevant EC Regulations: e.g. EC Financial Regulations (Budgetary Law) SPECIFIC PROGRAMS CONTRACTS

3. General issues • Final Adoption by the Council (November 2002) • Development of Model Contracts and work programmes + Calls for proposals (December 2002) • Publication of Calls : 17 December 2002

4. General Issues Drafted with the aim of • Simplification: no implementing regulations; less than 10 model-contracts (currently 33) • Flexibility: the work programme may adjust rules to RTD activities’/instruments’ specificity • Autonomy for participants: within the framework of the rules, organisation of relations within the consortium is a matter for participants themselves

5. Contract Structure • Core contractstandard text (completed with project data) • Annex Ithe “project” (technical tasks - work to be carried out) • Annex IIgeneral conditions (standard, applicable to every instrument) • Annex IIIinstrument specific provisions (variableper instrument)

6. Instruments • New Networks of excellence, Integrated projects, Integrated initiatives infrastructures, Collective research projects (Specific research projects for SMEs), Article 169 • Traditional Specific targeted projects, Co-operative research projects(Specific research projects for SMEs), Actions to promote and develop human resources and mobility(Some arenew), Co-ordination actions, Specific support actions • BUT RULES APPLIES TO ALL

7. 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 instruments to adapt to changing circumstances, both in science and partnership • Increased management autonomy • to eliminate unnecessary micromanagement • While preserving public accountability and protecting interests of the Community

8. Participation Who can participate? • NewEvery legal entity that contributes to the project (incl. Project managers) • New Associated candidate countries = Member States • New International European interest organisations = Member States

9. Participation Minimum number • New3 from MS or AS, with 2 from MS or Ass. Cand. Countries for all the instruments • 1 (MS or AS or Third Country or International organisation) possible for fellowships and specific support actions Flexibility :Minimum number can be increased by work-programmes

10. Participation Other countries and other International organisations • INTEGRATING PART • Participation for all • Financing for INCO countries • Financing for others if essential to carry out the project • OTHER PARTS • Participation for all those with co-operation agreement under its conditions; funding if essential. • Participation for the others in activities if necessary to carry out the project; funding if essential.

11. PARTICIPATION/FINANCING

12. Evaluation Core criteria & Criteria for new instruments To be specified and complemented in work programmes according to instrument and activity New Additional criteria Synergies with education, role of women in research, societal impact Not compulsory Exclusion criteria Violation of fundamental ethical principles New Financial irregularities (see EC Financial Regulations)

13. Evaluation New Two-stage evaluation procedure If specified in the call for proposals New Evaluation on a non-anonymous basis Unless otherwise specified in call for proposal New Manuals on evaluation and on negotiation and selection procedures

14. Key issues in the evaluation of IPs • Relevance to the objectives of the programme (S&T, S-E, policy objectives of WP) • S&T excellence(focus, progress beyond state-of-art, S&T approach) • Potential impact(ambition,competitiveness, societal problems, European dimension, optimal use of results) • Quality of the consortium(commitment, suitability, complementarity, SMEs) • Quality of the management(organisational structure, project, knowledge, IPR, innovation) • Mobilisation of resources (critical mass, coherence, financial

15. Key issues in the evaluation of NoE • Relevance to the objectives of the programme(S&T, S-E, policy objectives of WP) • Participants excellence (R&D, suitability, critical mass) • Potential impact (strenghthening S&T excellence, ambition, spreading excellence, durable structuring) • Degree of integration & JPA (deep and durable integration, quality) • Organisation and management (organisational structure, network)

16. Key issues in the evaluation of STREPs • Relevance to the objectives of the programme (S&T, S-E, policy objectives of WP) • S&T excellence (focus, progress beyond state-of-art, S&T approach) • Potential impact (competitiveness, societal problems, European dimension, optimal use of results) • Quality of the consortium (commitment, suitability, complementarity, SMEs) • Quality of the management (project, knowledge, IPR, innovation) • Mobilisation of resources (necessity, coherence, financial plan)

17. Key issues in the evaluation of CAs • Relevance to the objectives of the programme (S&T, S-E, policy objectives of WP) • Quality of the co-ordination (progress beyond state-of-art, robustness of mechanisms) • Potential impact (European dimension, Community support, critical mass mobilisation, optimal use of results) • Quality of the consortium (suitability, complementarity) • Quality of the management (project, knowledge, IPR, innovation) • Mobilisation of resources (necessity, coherence, financial plan)

18. Key issues in the evaluation of SSAs • Relevance to the objectives of the programme (support objectives of WP, Call, SPs, ERA) • Quality of the support action (soundness and quality of design, competencies, innovation-originality) • Potential impact (European dimension, Community support, optimal use of results) • Quality of the management (credibility of capacity to deliver) • Mobilisation of resources (necessity, financial plan)

19. Implementation How? • Contractual link of all participants with the Commission • Newno more categories : all participants are contractors and have the same rights & obligations • Contract enters into force and the advance is paid • Newonce signed by the coordinator and the Commission • New other contractors’ written consents are collected by the coordinator and sent to the Commission within two months = quicker entry into force and payment

20. Implementation How? • Change/addition of participants • New at the request of the coordinator, deemed to act on behalf of the consortium • Newwith implicit agreement of the Commission within 6 weeks • New in IP/NoE, enlargement of the consortium to new participants and new activities may be foreseen. This enlargement follows then a call launched by the consortium with evaluation of proposals by external experts

21. Flexibility and autonomy in implementing IPs • 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 toadd activities and participants (with additional funding)

22. Flexibility and autonomy for NoE • 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 contract will specify when this must involve a competitive call • the Commission may decide to launch calls to add partners (with additional financing)

23. Implementation of STREPs, CAs and SSAs • For the work plan, the consortium • proposes a detailed plan for the whole duration • and may propose to modify the detailed work plan • but needs approval of the Commission to enter into force and • without modifying the overall objectives and deliverables • For the Community contribution • the contract will not specify its distribution between participants • For changes in the consortium • the consortium may modify its composition (subject to Commission approval, without additional funding, infrequent occurrence)

24. Financing

25. Financing

26. Financing Grant for integration (NoE) • Newmechanism • Calculation basis: degree of integration, number of researchers to be integrated, characteristics of the field concerned, JPA not as a %age of the budget for the JPA • Payment basis: completion of the JPA + costs certificates mentioning that the costs incurred are greater than the grant itself • Premium for integration (fixed grant)

27. Financial regime of NoE • Theaverage annual grantto a network could vary with the number of researchers as follows: • In this illustration, a network of 200 researchers supported over 5 years would therefore receive a fixed grant of €17.5 million (plus bonus for registered doctoral students)

28. Financing Grant to the budget • Calculation basis: %age of the preliminary budget of the execution plan • Payment basis: covers a share of the expenditure incurred, necessary for the execution of the indirect action • %age depends on: • type of activity • participant involved

29. Financing Where it takes the form of reimbursement of eligible costs, the Community financial contribution : • can only cover “supplementary costs” (costs not already covered by another source of financing, especially public) • can cover up to 100% of those supplementary costs, providing a real co-financing scheme • must be adapted for some legal entities (“commercial entities”) to take into account the ceiling of public financial support for research and demonstration activities.

30. Financing For instruments with no R&TD and/or demonstration activities • 100% of the supplementary costs whatever the instrument and its activities, providing a real co-financing scheme. • As a general rule (except special clause in the contract), indirect costs are deemed to be covered by a flat rate (established in the contract) [ACF][SCF] • Reports: • Financial statement : only supplementary costs • Management report : description of use of all resources involved

31. Financing For instruments with R&TD and/or demonstration activities (1/3) • 100% of the supplementary costs whatever the instrument and its activities, providing a real co-financing scheme, for legal entities for which the Community framework on State aids for research and development does not apply. • For those entities : either real indirect costs ([AC][SC]) or flat rate (20% of their direct costs except subcontracting costs) deemed to cover their indirect costs ([ACF][SCF]) • Reports: • Financial statement : only supplementary costs • Management report : description of use of all resources involved

32. Financing For instruments with R&TD and/or demonstration activities (2/3) • Up to 100% of the supplementary costs whatever the instrument and its activities, for legal entities for which the Community framework on State aids for research and development apply (“commercial entities”), in so far as: • it does not exceed 50% of the total eligible costs of research and technological development activities and does not result in total support from public sources exceeding 75% of the total eligible costs of research and technological development activities ; • it does not exceed 35% of the total eligible costs of demonstration activities and does not result in total support from public sources exceeding 50% of the total eligible costs of demonstration activities ;

33. Financing For instruments with R&TD and/or demonstration activities (3/3) • For those entities (“commercial entities”) : real indirect costs ([FC][TC]), except for SMEs (real indirect costs ([FC][TC]) or flat rate (20% of their direct costs except subcontracting costs) deemed to cover their indirect costs ([FCF][TCF])) • Reports: • Financial statement : total costs and receipts (public and private) • Management report : description of use of all resources involved

34. Financing Type of activity Research and technological development (including innovation related activity) Demonstration Training New Consortium Management - reimbursed up to 100% within the limit of 7% of community contribution Other activities specific to an instrument

35. Financing • Modalities Newno cost categories but list of ineligible costs New Participants’ own accounting rules New Periodical cost certificates by external auditor New Periodical advances and settlements yearly for IP and NoE periodicity of settlements to be specified in the contract for other instruments New No pre-allocation of the EC contribution between participants (funding is granted to the consortium as a whole)

36. Consortium agreement • Renewed importance due to the new legal and financial approaches • Regulates internal organisation of consortium, such as i.a.: • management of the project and allocation of the EC financing • agreement on IPR access rights • crisis management

37. Consortium agreement • New Compulsory except otherwise mentioned in the call for proposal • Not signed nor approved by the Commission • After or (preferably) before signing the contract but some decisions must be made by the participants before signature of contract (e.g. IPR issues) • Non binding guidelines published by the Commission

38. Liability New Collective responsibility of the participants • Responsibility of a last resort • Limited in proportion to the participant’s share of costs in the project, up to the total payment they are entitled to receive • IOs, public bodies or entities guaranteed by MS/AS solely responsible for their own debts • Exceptions for specific actions for SME’s and fellowships, and when duly justified for specific support actions

39. Control and Sanctions Objective to reinforce ex-post controls To simplify and streamline ex-ante controls: no systematic ex-ante financial controls (for instruments with collective responsibility) no bank guarantee (for instruments with collective responsibility) As a counterbalance to increased autonomy for participants

40. Control and Sanctions How? • New Continuous monitoring by Commission with external experts (mandatory for IP and NoE) • Periodical verification of expenditure made (annual for IP & NoE) based on audit certificates • Technical (incl. ethical), technological, and financial audits

41. Control and Sanctions Sanctions • Collective responsibility is also a form of sanction • Exclusion criterion, up to 5 years: financial irregularity + other cases foreseen in Article 93 of the new EC Financial Regulations • Recovery decisions (art. 256 EC Treaty) • Other sanctions in contracts, such as financial penalties

42. Monitoring and audits for IPs • 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

43. Governance and monitoring for NoE (1) • A network’s governance must ensureinstitutionalengagementby the partner organisations • through e.g. a “governing board” of senior representatives from the partners • to oversee integration of the partners’ activities

44. Governance and monitoring for NoE (2) Robust outputmonitoringby theCommission, involving external experts at all stages • annual reviews • basis for payment by results • triggering a yellow flag/red flag, if a review is failed • end-of-term review • to assess impact of network on strengthening and spreading excellence • Auditscarried out by the Commission: financial (at least one for each NoE, technical, technological, ethical.

45. Monitoring of STREPs, CAs and SSAs • Follow-up scheme: • Commission PO assigned • may foresee mid-term review with assistance of experts (e.g. if duration 3 years or more), with a go/no go decision to continue the project • may include various types of audits as appropriate

46. Intellectual property rights (IPR) Developed on the basis of • Feedback from FP5 • Features of the “new instruments” • participants may leave/join during the project • “larger” projects

47. Principles • Consistencywith FP5(same concepts) • Simplification NewSame IPR rules for allinstruments(few exceptions) NewSame IPR rules for allparticipants • Increasedcertainty, in particular regarding access rights(restricted to what is necessary) • Increased emphasis on the management of knowledge and IP(especially new instruments)

48. General concepts • Definitions:no major change w.r.t. FP5 • “knowledge”, “pre-existing know-how”, “use”, “dissemination”, ... • Ownership:no major changes w.r.t. FP5 • resides with the participants (incl. JRC) generating knowledge • exception for SMEs actions : ownership resides with the SMEs, not with the “RTD Performers” • exception for public procurements (Commission buys a result) • transfer: prior notice to other participants+ Commission (possible objection within 30 days)

49. General concepts • Protection • New required but not limited to legal protection (public domain approach, etc. possible) • Publication • New allowed if not detrimental to protection • prior notice to Commission + other participants (possible objection within 30 days) • Use / dissemination • New compulsory under conditions • Commission may disseminate itself if needed

50. Access rights General principles • New Granted on written request • No sub-licensing(unless explicitly agreed + possible optional clause for software) • Obligatory ARs between participants limited to what they really need (either for carrying out the project or for using their own knowledge) but broader ARs may be freely negotiated • ARs granted to third parties : Commission may object