Rompre avec le pass

1
The Sixth Framework Programme
The Sixth Framework Programme (2002-2006)
A new Research Framework Programme (FP) designed
to help realise the European Research Area
(ERA) www.cordis.lu/fp6/europa.eu.int/comm/rese
arch/fp6/
1
2
What is the European Research Area?
The Sixth Framework Programme

• Long-term goal of ERA, launched at Lisbon summit
  2½ years ago
• to create a true internal market for research
  in Europe
• Why do we need ERA?
• Europe will fall far short of its economic
  potential unless it reverses decades of
  technological underperformance
• but for that to happen, Europe must first tackle
  deep-rooted structural weaknesses in its research
  and innovation systems
• hence ERA

2
3
What are these structural weaknesses?
The Sixth Framework Programme

• Underinvestment in the research system
• both financial and human
• particularly by the business sector
• Unfriendly environment for research and
  innovation
• regulatory shortcomings
• financial weaknesses
• weak culture of entrepreneurship
• networking failures
• unfriendly social environment
• Excessive fragmentation of public research
• coupled to low levels of cooperation and
  coordination between countries on policies and
  programmes

3
4
Why FP6 became a tool to realise ERA?
The Sixth Framework Programme

• The FP is the only funding arm of EU research
  policy
• primary mission of new FP must therefore be to
  help realise ERA
• Previous FPs had, however, a different mission
• were not designed to tackle our structural
  weaknesses
• were instead designed to support network-building
  and high quality research
• though often failed to mobilise the critical mass
  needed to achieve ambitious objectives of
  European dimension
• were also overly complex and excessively
  bureaucratic in their implementation
• Therefore, to address its new mission, the
  concept of the FP had to be totally rethought

4
5
Key features of FP6 (1)
The Sixth Framework Programme

• For its objective-driven thematic components
• much greater concentration on a limited number of
  topics of strategic importance to Europe
• where the research needs to be carried out at the
  European level
• using new more effective instruments capable of
  mobilising the activities and resources necessary
  to achieve ambitious objectives of European
  dimension
• integrated projects, networks of excellence,
  Article 169

Note these new instruments are the principal
innovation in the thematic components
of FP6
5
6
Key features of FP6 (2)
The Sixth Framework Programme

• Better balance between objective-driven thematic
  research and actions to reinforce Europes
  research base
• expanded and better targeted training mobility
  actions
• new bottom-up action to support emerging ST
  (NEST)
• expanded support for research infrastructures
• mainstreaming of most international cooperation,
  innovation and SME support measures
• new science and society action
• expanded range of measures to support open
  coordination in research policy-making
• new scheme (ERA-NET) to support the networking
  and mutual opening of national programmes

6
7
Key features of FP6 (3)
The Sixth Framework Programme

• Simplified and streamlined implementation
• to reduce overheads of participating
• to speed up procedures
• to increase flexibility and autonomy of
  contractors
• Full integration of the associated candidate
  countries
• research is first policy area where these
  countries are fully integrated into the EU

7
8
FP6 budget
The Sixth Framework Programme

• 17.5 billion (compared to 14.96 billion in FP5)
• an increase of 9 in real terms (a satisfactory
  result)

• billion
• Focusing and integrating Community
  13.345 research (thematic)
• Structuring ERA (underpinning) 2.605
• Strengthening the foundations of ERA
  320(coordinating)Euratom (nuclear)
  1.230

8
9
Structure of FP6
The Sixth Framework Programme

• excluding Euratom (7)? of which, 15 for SMEs

9
10
Timetable of FP6
The Sixth Framework Programme

• February 2001 Commission proposals for FP6
• March 2002 Invitation to submit EoIs
• June 2002 EP/Council
  co-decision on FP6
• September 2002 Results of EoI exercise
  published
• September 2002 Council decisions on SPs
• 17 December 2002 Initial calls for proposals
• March-June 2003 First deadlines

10
11
Instruments for implementing FP6 priority themes
Instruments for implementing FP6
priority themes
A classification of the instruments available to
implement the priority thematic areas of the
Sixth Framework Programme europa.eu.int/comm/rese
arch/fp6/networks-ip.html
1
12
A wider range of better differentiated instruments
Instruments for implementing FP6 priority themes

• New instruments
• integrated projects
• networks of excellence
• article 169 (joint implementation of national
  programmes)
• Traditional instruments
• specific targeted research projects
• coordination actions
• specific support actions

2
13
Principles guiding their design
Instruments for implementing FP6 priority themes

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

3
14
Integrated projects
Instruments for implementing FP6 priority themes

• Designed to generate the knowledge required to
  implement the priority themes of FP6
• by integrating the critical mass of activities
  and resources needed
• to achieve ambitious clearly defined scientific
  and technological objectives
• Essentially therefore an instrument for
  supporting objective-driven research of a
  European dimension
• where the main deliverable is new knowledge

4
15
Networks of excellence
Instruments for implementing FP6 priority themes

• 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
• through a joint programme of activities
• aimed primarily at creating a durable integration
  of the research capacities of the network
  partners
• Essentially therefore an instrument for tackling
  the fragmentation of European research
• where main deliverable is a durable structuring
  and shaping of how research is carried out in
  Europe
• Each NoE also has a mission to spread excellence
• where training is an essential component

5
16
Article 169
Instruments for implementing FP6 priority themes

• Enables the Community to participate in research
  programmes carried out jointly by a number of MS
• Potentially a most powerful instrument
• 169s integrate national programmes
• However, may be difficult to use in large numbers
• each requires a co-initiative by national
  programmes and the Commission to generate a
  proposal
• followed by long and complex decision-making,
  involving a co-decision of Parliament and Council
• So far untried
• the Commission has now presented a pilot proposal

6
17
Traditional instruments
Instruments for implementing FP6 priority themes

• Retained to smooth the transition from FP5 to FP6
• particularly for smaller research actors,
  including SMEs, and for participants from
  candidate countries
• Also to support research activities of more
  limited scope and ambition
• Three traditional instruments
• specific targeted research projects
• evolved form of FP5 RTD and demonstration
  projects
• coordination actions
• evolved form of FP5 concerted actions/thematic
  networks
• specific support actions
• evolved form of FP5 accompanying measures

7
18
Classification of the instruments
Instruments for implementing FP6 priority themes
8
19
FP6 Integrated Projects
FP6 Integrated Projects
A new instrument for supporting objective-driven
research of European dimension (as of November
2002) europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6/networks-i
p.html
1
20
What is their purpose?
FP6 Integrated Projects

• 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
  supporting objective-driven research of a
  European dimension
• where the main deliverable is new knowledge

2
21
What activities can be supported?
FP6 Integrated Projects

• Activities integrated by an IP may cover the full
  research spectrum
• must contain a research component
• may contain technological development and
  demonstration components
• may contain a training component
• must ensure the effective management of
  knowledge, and when appropriate its exploitation
• all within a unified project management structure

3
22
What is the scale of critical mass?
FP6 Integrated Projects

• Concerning resources each IP must assemble the
  critical mass needed to achieve its ambitious
  goals
• activities integrated may range up to several
  tens of millions
• but no minimum threshold, provided necessary
  ambition and critical mass is achieved
• Concerning its partnership minimum of three
  participants from three different countries
• but in practice likely to be substantially more
• Concerning its duration typically three to five
  years
• but more if necessary to deliver its objectives

4
23
What type of financial regime?
FP6 Integrated Projects

• Community support will be in the form of a grant
  to the budget
• Paid as a contribution to actual costs
• that are necessary for the project
• determined according to the usual accounting
  conventions of each participant
• recorded in the accounts of the participants
• or, if provided in the contract, in the accounts
  of third parties
• excluding indirect taxes, interest
• (Note As each participant is free to use its own
  accounting conventions, there will be no
  pre-defined cost categories as in FP5.)

5
24
What are the cost models?
FP6 Integrated Projects

• A family of three simplified cost models
• FC full direct and full indirect costs
• FCF full direct costs plus 20 (excluding
  subcontracts) for related indirect costs
• ACF additional direct costs plus 20 (excluding
  subcontracts) for related indirect costs
• The FCF model will be an option for SMEs only
• The ACF model is available only for public bodies
  and individuals
• (Note An organisation will normally use the same
  model in all FP6 instruments.)

6
25
What are the rates of support?
FP6 Integrated Projects

• For full-cost participants, maximum rates are
• 50 for RTD components
• 35 for any demonstration component
• 100 for any training component
• 100 for consortium management
• ACF participants are supported at up to 100 of
  additional costs for all components of the
  project
• except for consortium management, which may be at
  100 of full costs
• Consortium management costs chargeable at 100
  may not exceed 7 of the Community contribution

7
26
What is the payments regime?
FP6 Integrated Projects

• Annual advances
• Annual settlement of payments
• each participant to provide a summary cost
  statement supported by
• a management-level justification of costs
• a certificate by an independent auditor stating
  the total costs incurred

8
27
Flexibility and autonomy of implementation
FP6 Integrated Projects

• 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)

9
28
Payments and reporting schedule(example of a 4
year contract)
FP6 Integrated Projects
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
10
29
Evaluation process
FP6 Integrated Projects

• Simplified proposal-making
• reflecting evolutionary nature of the project
• Evaluation by a strengthened peer-review system
• possibly involving two-stage submission and
  hearings of applicants
• Key evaluation criteria include
• ST excellence of the proposed project
• scale of ambition and potential impact
• critical mass in terms of both activities and
  resources
• effectiveness of knowledge management
• quality of project management

11
30
Networks of Excellence
FP6 Networks of Excellence
A new instrument for tackling the fragmentation
of European research (as of November 2002)
europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6/networks-ip.html
1
31
What is their purpose?
Networks of Excellence

• 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
• through a joint programme of activities
• aimed primarily at creating a durable integration
  of the research capacities of the network
  partners
• while at the same time advancing knowledge on the
  topic
• Essentially therefore 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 also has a mission to spread excellence

2
32
What is a joint programme of activities?
Networks of Excellence

• The JPA consists of a range of additional
  activities
• integrating activities
• coordinated programming of the partners
  activities
• sharing of research platforms/tools/facilities/inf
  rastructure
• joint management of the knowledge portfolio
• staff exchanges, possibly relocation of staff and
  equipment
• reinforced electronic communications
• joint research activities
• a programme of joint research to support the
  networks goals
• activities to spread excellence
• training programme of researchers and other key
  staff
• dissemination and communication
• all within a unified management structure

3
33
What is the scale of critical mass?
Networks of Excellence

• Concerning expertise the network must assemble
  the critical mass needed to achieve its ambitious
  goals
• will vary from topic to topic
• larger networks may involve several hundreds of
  researchers
• but networks may be much smaller, provided
  necessary ambition and critical mass is achieved
• Concerning its partnership in general at least
  six
• legal minimum of three from three different
  countries
• Concerning duration of Community support
  typically five years
• but up to seven years, if justified to create a
  durable integration

4
34
What type of financial regime?
Networks of Excellence

• Community support targeted at overcoming the
  barriers to a durable integration
• barriers are mainly organisational, cultural and
  human
• cannot be quantified in normal accounting terms
• Has led to the concept of providing an incentive
  for integration
• taking the form of a fixed grant
• calculated mainly on basis of number of
  researchers
• that make up the research capacities of the
  partners on the topic of the network
• where a researcher has a PhD or at least four
  years research experience
• with a bonus for registered doctoral students

5
35
Illustrative grant calculation
Networks of Excellence

• 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 be
  granted 17.5 million (plus any bonus for
  doctoral students)

6
36
What is the payments regime?
Networks of Excellence

• Annual advances
• Annual settlements paid on the basis of results
• i.e. will depend on a progressive advance towards
  a durable integration
• with an additional check that costs greater than
  the value of the grant are incurred in
  implementing the JPA
• A results-based payments regime necessitates a
  robust system of output monitoring
• with annual reviews, involving external experts
• triggering a yellow flag/red flag, if a review is
  failed

7
37
Flexibility and autonomy
Networks of Excellence

• 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 Commission may decide to launch calls to add
  partners (with additional financing)

8
38
Evaluation process
Networks of Excellence

• Simplified proposal-making
• reflecting evolutionary nature of the network
• Evaluation by a strengthened peer review system
• possible two-stage submission, hearings of
  applicants
• Key evaluation criteria include
• potential impact on strengthening Europes
  excellence
• extent, depth and lasting nature of the expected
  integration
• ability of the JPA to deliver this integration
• collective excellence of the network partners
• contribution to spreading excellence
• management and governance of the network

9
39
Governance of the network
Networks of Excellence

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

10