Acceding and Candidate Countries and the 6th Framework Programme Conference

1. Acceding and Candidate Countries and the 6th Framework Programme Conference (Bucharest, February 12-13, 2004) “FP6 New Instruments : IP and NoE"

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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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... Annual settlement of payments • an outline of previous 12 months’ activities • summary financial statement by participant • certification by independent auditor • justification of the costs incurred

10. Financial regime (2) 3 simplified cost methodologies (still under discussion) • full costs (FC) • full costs flat rate (FCF) • additional costs (AC) Maximum rates of support (FC-FCF participants) • research components: 50 % • demonstration components: 35 % • management and training: 100 % (7% rule) AC participants: 100 % of additional costs for all components

11. 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)

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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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)

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

18. 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

19. 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)

20. 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

21. 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)

22. 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 the network planned likely to constitute an answer to the fragmentation problem identified? Reminder Main NoE features(2)

23. 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)

24. Some general comments after the first calls • Some misunderstanding regarding the concept of integration • Partnerships as a rule too large • Some doubts about the use of the Community grant • Some uncertainty regarding the final « deliverable » expected from the network

25. Concept of integration • much further than simple co-ordination • requires an institutional active and permanent involvement • sort of “mutation process”

26. likely to allow for actual integration all partners expected to be equal all partners directly involved in the « governing board » should remain manageable!!! Partnerships

27. decided by the consortium on entirely autonomous basis can be used for ANY activity of the joint programme of activities (integrating activities, joint research programme, spreading of excellence, management) Use of the Community grant

28. Main objective: durable integration at the end of the funding period Beyond the funding period (more than 5 years) Clearly demonstrated at the end of the period (legal structure, important shared investments, important common projects portfolio….) What does the Commission expect as deliverable?

29. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION Questions / Answers