Rompre avec le pass

1
Participation DisseminationRules for 6th
Framework Programme2002-2006(EC)
NICOLAS SABATIEREuropean Commission RDT -
Directorate A - Unit 3
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

• Next steps
• Final Adoption by the Council (November 2002)
• Development of Model Contracts and work
  programmes Calls for proposals (November 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
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 are
  new), Co-ordination actions, Specific support
  actions
• BUT RULES APPLIES TO ALL

6
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

7
Classification of the instruments
8
Objectives of IPs

• 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
  sponsoring
• objective-driven research of a European dimension

9
Types of activities in IPs

• Activities integrated by a project may cover the
  full research spectrum
• should contain objective-driven research
• technological development and demonstration
  components as appropriate
• may contain a training component
• the effective management of knowledge and when
  appropriate its exploitation, will be essential
• the whole carried out in a coherent management
  framework

10
Expected scale of critical mass of an IP

• Resources each IP must assemble the critical
  mass of resources needed to achieve its ambitious
  objectives
• activities integrated may range up to several
  tens of millions (but no minimum threshold)
• Partnership minimum of three participants from
  three different countries
• but in practice likely to be substantially more
• SME participation is strongly encouraged
• Third country participants may be included,
  with a possibility of Community financial support
  for certain groups of countries
• Duration typically three to five years
• but more if necessary to deliver the objectives

11
Objectives of NoE

• Designed to strengthen Europes excellence on 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
• 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 has a mission to spread excellence
  beyond its partners

12
The joint programme of activities of a NoE (1)

• A range of new or re-oriented activities
• 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 and equipment
• reinforced electronic communication systems

13
The joint programme of activities of a NoE (2)

• joint research activities a programme of joint
  research to support the networks goals
• development of new research tools and platforms
  for common use
• generating new knowledge to fill gaps in or to
  extend the collective knowledge portfolio

14
The joint programme of activities of a NoE(3)

• Activities to spread excellence
• training researchers and other key staff
• dissemination and communication activities
• networking activities to help transfer knowledge
  to teams external to the network
• where appropriate, promoting the exploitation of
  the results generated within the network
• where appropriate, innovation-related activities
  protection of knowledge generated, assessment of
  the socio-economic impact of the knowledge and
  technologies generated, developing a plan for use
  and dissemination of the knowledge, take-up
  activities (especially for SMEs)

15
The joint programme of activities of a NoE(4)

• Network management
• overall coordination of the joint activities
• communication with the Commission, reporting
• activities linked to consortium-level financing
  and accounting management and legal issues
• coordination of the knowledge management
  activities, and where appropriate, other
  innovation-related activities
• promotion of gender equality
• science and society issues related to the topics
  of the network
• supporting the governing board and other network
  bodies
• All activities within a unified management
  structure

16
Expected scale ofcritical mass of a NoE

• Expertise assembling of the critical mass needed
  to achieve the ambitious goals of the network
• variable from topic to topic
• larger networks may involve several hundreds of
  researchers
• but may be smaller, provided the necessary
  ambition and critical mass are achieved
• Partnership in general at least six (legal
  minimum 3 from 3 different countries)
• Duration of Community support typically 5 years
• more if necessary to create durable integration
  BUT no more than 7 years

17
Objectives of Article 169

• Enables the Community to participate in research
  programmes carried out jointly by a number of MS
• Potentially a most powerful instrument
• IPs and NoEs integrate individual performers of
  research
• 169s integrate national programmes
• But may be difficult to use in large numbers
• each requires a co-initiative by national
  programmes and the Commission to generate a
  proposal
• long and complex decision-making, as long as
  co-decisions of Council and Parliament taken
  case-by-case
• so far untried
• the Commission has presented a pilot proposal

18
Objectives and Activities of STREPs

• Designed to generate the knowledge required to
  improve European competitiveness and to meet the
  needs of society or Community policies
• by improving existing or developing new products,
  processes or services and/or
• by proving the viability of new technologies
  offering potential economic advantage
• May combine any of the following types of
  activities
• Targeted, well defined and precisely focused
  research and technological development
• Demonstration component(s) as appropriate
• Project management

19
STREPs main characteristics(1)

• STREPs compared to IPs
• The STREP scale of ambition is much more limited
  than that of IPs, consequently
• Different Value of activities, Duration, Size
  of the consortium, Types of activities, Types of
  Calls (EOI-Calls), Evaluation process/key issues
  (partly), Negotiation, Consortium agreement,
  Implementation (partly), Follow-up (partly)

20
STREPs main characteristics(2)

• STREPs compared to FP5 RTD projects
• Similar Objectives, Scale of ambition, Value,
  Duration, Size of consortium, Types of
  participants, Calls, Evaluation, Negotiation,
  Follow-up, Audits
• Different Financial regime, Simplified
  Proposals, Contractual aspects, Consortium
  agreement, Collective responsibility,
  Implementation, IPR

21
Objectives and activities of CAs

• Designed 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.
• May combine the following two types of activities
  
• Co-ordination activities
• Project management activities

22
Types of co-ordination Activities

• Each CA shall consist of a programme of work,
  incorporating all or some of the following types
  of mid/long term collaborative 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.

23
CAs main characteristics

• CAs compared to NoE
• 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

24
Objectives and activities of SSAs

• Designed to
• complement the other FP6 instruments,
• help in preparations for future Community
  research and technological development policy
  activities and
• 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.
• May combine the following two types of activities
  
• Support activities
• Project management activities

25
Types of support activities

• Each SSA shall have an action plan, which may
  consist of one or more (as appropriate on a case
  by case basis) of the following 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.

26
SSAs 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

27
Participation

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

28
Participation

• Minimum number
• New 3 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

29
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.

30
Instruments to be used in priority

• Calls for proposals will identify which
  instruments are to be used, which have priority,
  and for what
• From the outset, IPs and NoEs will be the
  priority means
• for implementing those themes where it is already
  deemed appropriate
• while maintaining the use of specific targeted
  research projects, co-ordination actions and
  specific support actions
• In 2004, the Commission will arrange an
  independent evaluation of the use of the
  instruments
• may lead to an adjustment of their relative
  weightings

31
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)
32
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
33
Key issues in the evaluation of IPs

• Relevance to the objectives of the programme
  (ST, S-E, policy objectives of WP)
• ST excellence (focus, progress beyond
  state-of-art, ST 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

34
Key issues in the evaluation of NoE

• Relevance to the objectives of the programme
  (ST, S-E, policy objectives of WP)
• Participants excellence (RD, suitability,
  critical mass)
• Potential impact (strenghthening ST excellence,
  ambition, spreading excellence, durable
  structuring)
• Degree of integration JPA (deep and durable
  integration, quality)
• Organisation and management (organisational
  structure, network)

35
Key issues in the evaluation of STREPs

• Relevance to the objectives of the programme
  (ST, S-E, policy objectives of WP)
• ST excellence (focus, progress beyond
  state-of-art, ST 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)

36
Implementation

• How?
• Contractual link of all participants with the
  Commission
• New no more categories all participants are
  contractors and have the same rights
  obligations
• Contract enters into force and the advance is
  paid
• New once 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

37
Implementation

• How?
• Change/addition of participants
• New at the request of the coordinator, deemed to
  act on behalf of the consortium
• New with 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

38
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 to add
  activities and participants (with additional
  funding)

39
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)

40
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)

41
Financing
Grant for integration
Grant to the budget
Flat-rate
Networks of excellence ? Integrated Projects
? Specific targeted research projects
? Specific research projects for
SMEs ? Integrated initiatives relating to
infrastructure ? Actions to promote human
resources mobility ? ? Coordination actions
? Specific support actions ? ?
42
Financing

• Grant for integration (NoE)
• New mechanism
• 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)

43
Financial regime of NoE

• 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
  therefore receive a fixed grant of 17.5 million
  (plus bonus for registered doctoral students)

44
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 (cost models)

45
Financing

• Cost Models definition
• FC actual direct and indirect costs
• New FCF (variant of FC) actual direct costs
  flat rate for indirect costs (20 of total actual
  direct costs, except subcontracting)
• AC actual additional direct costs flat rate
  for indirect costs (20 of total actual
  additional direct costs, except subcontracting)

46
Financing

• Cost Models application
• New Organisation based, not according to
  accounting capacities mandatory or optional no
  change allowed during FP6
• International organisations, physical persons
  ACF
• Public non-profit - Pending issue
• Solution 1 FC or FCF or ACF
  (optional) solution 2 ACF (optional)
• SMEs FC or FCF (optional)
• Other organisations FC

47
Financing
Type of activity Research and technological
development (including innovation related
activity) - 50 (100 AC) Demonstration - 35
(100 AC) Training - 100 (100 AC) New
Consortium Management - reimbursed up to 100
within the limit of 7 of community contribution
Other activities specific to an instrument -
100 (100 AC)
48
Financing
Modalities New no 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)
49
Reporting and payments schedule for IPs

• Advance payment equal to 85 of the Community
  contribution anticipated for the first 18 months
• The consortium submits annual report containing
• an outline of previous 12 months activities
• financial documents on the costs incurred
  (including cost certificates and management-level
  justification)
• a detailed implementation plan and associated
  financial plan for the following 18 months
• Upon acceptance of above by the Commission
• final settlement of payment for period concerned
  (subject to any ex-post audit)
• outstanding advance supplemented up to 85 of the
  anticipated Community contribution for following
  18 months

50
Payments and reporting schedule for an
IP(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
51
Reporting and payments schedule for NOEs

• Advance payment equal to 85 of the Community
  contribution anticipated for the first 18 months
• The consortium will submit to the Commission for
  its approval an annual report containing
• an outline of previous 12 months activities
• financial documents on the costs incurred in
  implementing the JPA (including cost certificates
  and management-level justification)
• a detailed joint programme of activities for the
  following 18 months
• Upon acceptance of above, the outstanding advance
  will be supplemented up to 85 of the anticipated
  Community contribution for following 18 months

52
Reporting and payments schedule for STREPS

• Advance payment equal to 85 of the Community
  contribution anticipated for the first 186
  months
• The consortium submits annual (e.g. 18 month)
  report containing
• an outline of previous scientific activities
  reporting period
• financial documents on the costs incurred
  (including cost certificates and management-level
  justification)
• Upon acceptance of above by the Commission
• final settlement of payment for period concerned
  (subject to any ex-post audit)
• outstanding advance supplemented up to 85 of the
  anticipated Community contribution for remaining
  period

53
Payments and reporting schedule for a STREP, CA
or SSA(example of a 3 year contract)
Final activity report
Final payment
Reported costs audit certificate (mandatory)
Intermediate payment/ settlement
Periodic activity report (mid-term review
optional)
Reported costs (audit certificate if required)
Detailed work plan
Initial advance
0 6 12 14
18 20 24 26 30
36 38

Months
54
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

55
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

56
Liability

• New Collective responsibility of the participants
• Responsibility of a last resort
• Limited in proportion to the participants 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 SMEs and
  fellowships, and when duly justified for specific
  support actions

57
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
58
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

59
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

60
Governance and monitoring for NoE (1)

• A networks governance must ensure institutional
  engagement by the partner organisations
• through e.g. a governing board of senior
  representatives from the partners
• to oversee integration of the partners
  activities

61
Governance and monitoring for NoE (2)

• Robust output monitoring by the Commission,
  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
• Audits carried out by the Commission financial
  (at least one for each NoE, technical,
  technological, ethical.

62
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

63
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

64
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

65
Principles

• Consistency with FP5 (same concepts)
• Simplification
• ? New Same IPR rules for ? all instruments (few
  exceptions)
• ? New Same IPR rules for all participants
• Increased certainty, in particular regarding
  access rights (restricted to what is necessary)
• Increased emphasis on the management of knowledge
  and IP (especially new instruments)

66
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)

67
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

68
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

69
Access rights

• New features
• Feedback from FP5 need for pre-existing know-how
  (PEKH) to be better safeguarded
• New Possibility for a participant to exclude
  specific pieces of its PEKH from the obligation
  to grant ARs to the others
• with the agreement of all participants
• before the participant concerned signs the
  contract (or before entry of a new participant)

70
FP6 System of Access Rights
Access rights to
Access rights to
pre-existing know-how
knowledge
If a participant needs them for carrying out its
own work under the project
For carrying out the project
Royalty-free unless otherwise agreed before
signing the contract
Royalty-free
If a participant needs them for using its own
knowledge
For use (exploitation further research)
Non-discriminatory conditions to be agreed
Royalty-free unless otherwise agreed before
signing the contract
Possibility for participants to agree on
exclusion of specific pre-existing know-how
before signature of the contract (or before
entry of a new participant)