10/10/02 - 1 ncp presentation an outline of the implementation of co-ordination actions (cas) in the...
TRANSCRIPT
10/10/02 - 1 NCP presentation
An outline of the implementation of Co-ordination Actions (CAs) in the Sixth Framework Programme
(as of October 2002)europa.eu.int/comm/research/nfp/networks-ip.html
Co-ordination Actions in FP6
10/10/02 - 2 NCP presentation
Objective
Co-ordination actions (CA) are intended to promote and support the networking and co-ordination of research and innovation activities at national, regional and European level. by establishing in a coherent way co-ordinated
initiatives of a range of research and innovation operators, in order to achieve improved integration of the European research.
10/10/02 - 3 NCP presentation
Activities CAs combine the following two types of
activities Co-ordination activities
Organisation of conferences, of meetings; Performance of studies, analysis; Exchanges of personnel; Exchange and dissemination of good practice; Setting up of common information systems Setting up of expert groups; Definition, organisation and management of joint or
common initiatives.
Project management activities
10/10/02 - 4 NCP presentation
Expected scale Resources: each CA must assemble the resources
needed to achieve its objectives budget may range from hundreds of thousands up to
several millions of € and involve up to several of person-years
but no minimum threshold
Partnership: minimum of three participants from three different
countries but in practice likely to be more
Duration: typically two to three years but exceptionally more if duly justified as necessary to deliver
the objectives
10/10/02 - 5 NCP presentation
FINANCIAL REGIME (1)
Community support will be in the form of a “grant to the budget”
Paid as a contribution to actual costs that are incurred, economic and necessary for
the project, determined according to own rules that are recorded in the accounts of the
participants or, when provided for in the contract, in the
accounts of third parties
that exclude indirect taxes…
10/10/02 - 6 NCP presentation
FINANCIAL REGIME (2) Annually, each participant to provide a
summary cost statement certified by an independent auditor (if required) supported by a management-level justification of costs
Two cost models: FCF: Full actual direct costs and a flat rate of 20%
on all direct costs apart from subcontracting; AC: Additional cost model covering all non
recurring costs and a flat rate of 20% on all direct costs apart from subcontracting.
10/10/02 - 7 NCP presentation
FINANCIAL REGIME (3)
Maximum rates of support for FCF participants Up to 100% for co-ordination activities 100% for project management (up to 7% of EC
contribution to the project)
AC participants supported at up to 100% of additional costs for all components of the project (+ recurring costs for project management activities)
10/10/02 - 8 NCP presentation
PARTICIPATION/FINANCINGPARTICIPATION AND FINANCING POSSIBILITIES BY COUNTRY OF ESTABLISHMENT OF
PARTICIPANT
Participant’s country ofestablishment
Participation Financing
European Union Member States,JRC
Rightfully Rightfully
Associated Candidate Countries Rightfully Rightfully
Other Associated Countries Rightfully Rightfully
International organisations ofEuropean interest
Rightfully Rightfully
Russia, New IndependentStates, Mediterranean Countries,Developing countries (with orwithout a co-operationagreement)
Rightfully over and above theminimum threshold
Within the limits of the budgetavailable for international co-operation activities in thecontext the thematic priorities
Third countries having a co-operation agreement
Rightfully over and above theminimum threshold
If Community contribution isnecessary and foreseen by theWork Programme
Other third countries If participation is foreseen or ifit is necessary for carrying outthe project
If Community contribution isforeseen or if it is essential forcarrying out the project
Other internationalorganisations
Rightfully over and above theminimum threshold
If Community contribution isforeseen in the work programmeor if it is essential for carryingout the project
10/10/02 - 9 NCP presentation
EVALUATION PROCESS
Calls for proposals published in the OJ, via CORDIS web-site, via
NCPs Simplified proposal-making
limited to sufficient “management level” detail Evaluation by a peer-review system
similar to the one in FP5 6 Key evaluation criteria
10/10/02 - 10 NCP presentation
EVALUATION CRITERIA (1)
Relevance to the objectives of the programme
the proposed project addresses the scientific, technical, socio-economic and policy objectives of the work programme.
Quality of the co-ordination the research actions/programmes to be co-ordinated
represent clear progress beyond the current state-of-the-art.
the co-ordination mechanisms are sufficiently robust to bring about the co-ordination envisaged.
10/10/02 - 11 NCP presentation
EVALUATION CRITERIA (2) Potential impact:
the impact best be achieved if at European level. the Community support would have a real impact on the action and
its scale, ambition and outcome. The project mobilises critical mass of resources in Europe exploitation and/or dissemination plans are adequate to ensure
optimal use of the project results.
Quality of the consortium the participants collectively constitute a consortium of high quality. the participants are well-suited to the tasks assigned to them. the project combines the complementary expertise of the
participants to generate added value.
10/10/02 - 12 NCP presentation
EVALUATION CRITERIA (3)
Quality of the management the project management is demonstrably of high quality. there is a satisfactory plan for the management of
knowledge, of intellectual property and of other innovation-related activities.
Mobilisation of resources the project provides for the resources (personnel, equipment,
financial…) necessary for success. the resources are convincingly integrated to form a
coherent project. the overall financial plan for the project is adequate.
10/10/02 - 13 NCP presentation
THE PARTS/CONTENT OF A PROPOSALPART B
PROPOSALCONTENT
• Objectives and expected impact
•Work plan and associated budget
•The consortium and the project resources
•Project management
•Exploitation and dissemination plans
•Ethics, safety and other issues (where relevant)
See Info-Pack/“Guide for Proposers” for precise details
PART A
10/10/02 - 14 NCP presentation
PROPOSAL SELECTION PROCEDURE
•Official JournalOfficial Journal•CORDISCORDIS•NCPsNCPs
CALL FOR CALL FOR PROPOSALSPROPOSALS
Eligibility Check: CommissionEligibility Check: CommissionEVALUATION: EVALUATION: Peer review principles/Peer review principles/
independent expertsindependent experts
NEGOTIATIONNEGOTIATION
INFORMATIONINFORMATION
MARKING AND MARKING AND PRIORITY PRIORITY ORDER OF ORDER OF
PROPOSALSPROPOSALS Panel (optional)Panel (optional)
SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTSIGNATURE OF CONTRACT
Programme CommitteeProgramme Committee
FUNDING FUNDING SCENARIO(s)SCENARIO(s)
CommissionCommission
10/10/02 - 15 NCP presentation
CONTRACTUAL ASPECTS (1) Single contract between EC and (as the case may
be): All the participants A common legal structure (association, EEIG, etc.)
representing them legally Content of the contract
Core contract max. EC contribution (co-ordination, management), but no
distribution between partners Technical annex (Annex 1)
subcontracts exceeding limit (as specified in model contract) General conditions (Annex 2) Specific conditions (Annex 3)
10/10/02 - 16 NCP presentation
CONTRACTUAL ASPECTS (2) Rights and obligations of the participants:Rights and obligations of the participants:
consortium agreement coordinator collective responsibility identical intellectual property rules for all
participants
For More Info See:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6/working-groups/m
odel-contract/index en.html)
10/10/02 - 17 NCP presentation
IMPLEMENTATION Work plan
the consortium proposes a detailed plan for the whole duration in the proposal
and may propose to modify the detailed work plan during the execution
but needs approval of the Commission - and without modifying the overall objectives and deliverables
Community contribution contract not specify distribution between participants
Changes in the consortium the consortium may modify its composition (subject to
Commission approval, without additional funding, infrequent occurrence)
10/10/02 - 18 NCP presentation
PAYMENTS AND REPORTING SCHEDULE(example of a 3 year contract)
Final activity report
Reported costs + audit certificate (mandatory)
Final payment
Periodic activity report (mid-term review : optional)
Reported costs+ (audit certificate : optional)
Intermediate payment/
settlement
Detailed work plan
Initial advance
0 6 12 14 18 24 26 30 36 38
Months
10/10/02 - 19 NCP presentation
MONIOTORING Follow-up scheme:
Commission PO assigned
may foresee mid-term review with assistance of experts (if duration >3 years), with a go/no go decision to continue the project
may include technical, financial, technological and/or ethical audits
10/10/02 - 20 NCP presentation
ACCESS RIGHTS
Access rights topre-existing know-how
Access rights to knowledgeresulting from the project
Yes, if a participant needs them for carrying out his own work under the project
For carrying outthe project
Royalty-free
unless otherwise agreedbefore signing the contract
Royalty-free
Yes, if a participant needs them for using his own knowledgeFor use purposes
(exploitation +further research) On non-discriminatory and reasonable conditions to
be agreed
Royalty-free
unless otherwise agreedbefore signing the contract
Possibility for participants to agree on exclusion ofspecific pre-existing know-how of a participant
from this obligation before this participant signs thecontract (or before entry of a new participant)
10/10/02 - 21 NCP presentation
Main characteristics CAs compared to NoEs:
Instrument for ad hoc co-operation between organisations for a specific purpose - no requirement for durable integration of all activities
A networking instrument for research funded from other sources (EC/national/regional)
CAs compared to SSAs: Instrument for more longer term co-operation and
networking compared to the more stand alone activities to be funded by SSAs
CAs compared to IPs and STREPs: CA is not an instrument to fund research
10/10/02 - 22 NCP presentation
An outline of the implementation of Specific Support Actions (SSAs) in the Sixth Framework
Programme
(as of October 2002)europa.eu.int/comm/research/nfp/networks-ip.html
Specific Support Actions in FP6
10/10/02 - 23 NCP presentation
Objective
Specific Support Actions are intended to complement the other FP6 instruments, to help in preparations for future Community
research and technological development policy activities and
to stimulate, encourage and facilitate the participation of SMEs, small research teams, newly developed and remote research centres, as well as those organisations from the Candidate Countries in the activities of the priority thematic areas.
10/10/02 - 24 NCP presentation
Activities SSAs combine the following two types of activities
Support activities Conferences, seminars, working groups and expert groups; Studies, analysis; Fact findings and monitoring; Trans-national technology transfer and take-up related
services; Development of research or innovation strategies; High level scientific awards and competitions; Operational support and dissemination, information and
communication activities.
Project management activities
10/10/02 - 25 NCP presentation
Expected scale Resources: each SSA must assemble the
resources needed to achieve its objectives budget may range from hundreds of thousands up
to several millions of € and involve up to several of person-years
but no minimum threshold
Partnership: Either a single, or a larger number of legal entities,
as specified in the relevant calls for proposals.
Duration: typically two to three years but exceptionally more if duly justified as necessary to
deliver the objectives
10/10/02 - 26 NCP presentation
Call Process Calls for proposals/Calls for tender
Published in the OJ, via CORDIS web-site, via NCPs Calls for tender for SSAs
Where the legal entities are identified in the WP For purchase of a service
The implementation of actions to facilitate the participation of SMEs and small organisations and organisations from the candidate countries will rely on the specific information and assistance structures, including the network of national contact points, established by the Member States and the associated countries at local, regional and national level and will aim at ensuring a smooth transition from the Fifth to the Sixth Framework Programme.
10/10/02 - 27 NCP presentation
EVALUATION CRITERIA (1)
Relevance to the objectives of the programme
the proposal addresses the key issues to achieve or support the objectives defined in the work programme, call, specific programmes or ERA as appropriate.
Quality of the support action the proposed objectives are sound and the plan of
sufficient high quality to achieve the objectives; the proposer(s) represent(s) a high level of competence in
terms of professional qualifications and/or experience; the proposed activities are innovative and original.
10/10/02 - 28 NCP presentation
EVALUATION CRITERIA (2) Potential impact
the impact can best be achieved at European level. the Community support would have a real impact on the
action and its scale, ambition and outcome. exploitation and/or dissemination plans are adequate to
ensure optimal use of the project results.
10/10/02 - 29 NCP presentation
EVALUATION CRITERIA (3)
Quality of the management the project management is credible in terms of
professional qualifications, experience, track record and capacity to deliver.
Mobilisation of resources the project provides for the resources (personnel,
equipment, financial…) necessary for success; the overall financial plan for the project is adequate.
10/10/02 - 30 NCP presentation
Implementation Same as for CA and STREPs:
Financial regime - funding models FC, FCF and AC Participation/financing Submission, evaluation and negotiation process -
except that some SSAs can be evaluated by the Commission staff
The contractual structure - specific Annex III for the SSAs
Description of work for the full duration Reporting, payment schedule and monitoring
process
10/10/02 - 31 NCP presentation
Main characteristics SSAs compared to CAs:
Instrument to support the implementation of the programme, priority or research objective - in most cases - stand alone events (meetings, conferences, studies etc.)
Instrument for future oriented activities: research roadmaps, identification of future research objectives
Instrument for dissemination and uptake of programme results
SSAs compared to IPs and STREPs: SSA is not an instrument to fund research activities
10/10/02 - 32 NCP presentation
Classification of the instrumentsInstrument Purpose Primary
deliverableScale
IP
NoE
169
STRP
CA
SSA
objective-driven research
tacklefragmentation
joint MSprogrammes
research
coordination
support
knowledge
structuring
knowledge and/or
structuring
knowledge
coordination
support
med-high
med-high
high
low-med
low-med
low-(med)
10/10/02 - 33 NCP presentation
INFO INSTRUMENTS
Practical guides to individual instruments are available on the DG Research website:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/nfp/networks-ip.html
10/10/02 - 34 NCP presentation
Need more information?
Morten Møller
Tel : +32/(0)2/296.35.26Fax : +32/(0)2/296.83.88
E-mail: [email protected]