11 November 2002

“FP6Integrated Projects”

Leonidas KarapiperisResearch DG

europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6/networks-ip.html

211 November 2002

A wider range of better differentiated instruments

New instruments

Integrated projects (IP)

Networks of excellence (NoE)

Article 169 (joint implementation of national programmes)

Traditional instruments

Specific targeted research projects

Co-ordination actions

Specific support actions

311 November 2002

Principles guiding their design (I)

Simplification and streamlining

to minimise the overheads for all concerned whether applicant, contractor or the Commission

to speed up procedures, especially time-to-contract

Flexibility and adaptability

to enable instruments to be applicable throughout the priority themes

to enable projects to evolve

411 November 2002

Principles guiding their design (II)

Increased management autonomy

to eliminate unnecessary micro-management

While preserving public accountability and protecting interests of the Community

511 November 2002

Classification of the instruments

Instrument Purpose Primarydeliverable

Scale

IP

NoE

Art. 169

STREP

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

611 November 2002

Instruments to be used in priority (I)

Calls for proposals will identify which instruments are to be used, which have priority, and for what

From the outset, IPs and NoE will be the priority means

for implementing those themes where it is already deemed appropriate

while maintaining the use of specific targeted research projects and coordination actions

711 November 2002

Instruments to be used in priority (II)

In 2004, the Commission will arrange an independent evaluation of the use of the instruments

may lead to an adjustment of their relative weightings

811 November 2002

Purpose of Integrated Projects (I)

Designed to generate the knowledge required to implement the priority thematic areas of FP6

by integrating the critical mass of activities and resources needed

to achieve ambitious, clearly defined scientific and technological objectives

Essentially an instrument for supporting objective-driven research of a European dimension

911 November 2002

Meaning of integration in IPs

Each IP should comprise a coherent set of component parts

Internal architecture may vary depending on topic, scope and managerial approach of each IP

Forms of integration:“vertical” - full value chain of stakeholders

“horizontal” - multidisciplinarity

“sectoral” - private/public

“financial” - synergy with other schemes (EIB, Eurêka)

10

11 November 2002

Activities

Activities integrated by a project may cover the full research spectrumshould contain objective-driven research

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

11

11 November 2002

What is the scale of critical mass (I)?

Concerning resources: each IP must assemble the critical mass of resources needed to achieve its ambitious objectivesactivities integrated may range up to several tens of

million euro

but no minimum threshold, provided necessary ambition and critical mass is achieved

12

11 November 2002

What is the scale of critical mass (II)?

Concerning the partnership: minimum of three participants from three different Member States or Associated States, of which at least two should be Member States or Associated candidate countriesbut 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 entities from certain groups of countries

13

11 November 2002

What is the scale of critical mass (III)?

Concerning its duration: typically 3 to 5 yearsbut more if necessary to deliver the objectives

14

11 November 2002

Proposal submission (I)

Through calls for proposalsmay be preceded by expressions of interest to help

focus calls and assist in consortium building

Simplified proposal-makingrequiring only sufficient “management-level” detail

reflecting evolutionary nature of the projectsummary description of activities for entire durationdetailed implementation plan only for first 18 months

15

11 November 2002

Proposal submission (II)

Possibility of two-stage submission

Proposers should make sure they address all the issues which will be examined during evaluation

16

11 November 2002

The negotiation process

Possible assistance of external experts

Main issues to be tackled:

finalise objectives and deliverables of the project

agree maximum level of Community grant

agree outline implementation plan for whole duration of project

agree detailed implementation plan for first 18 months

agree principles for changing consortium composition

17

11 November 2002

Reporting and payments schedule (I)

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

18

11 November 2002

Reporting and payments schedule (II)

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

19

11 November 2002

Payments and reporting schedule(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

Reported costs

Detailed work plan

Adjusted advance

Detailed work plan

Initial advance

0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48

Months

20

11 November 2002

Evolution of the consortium without additional funding

Replacement of a participant consortium may do so if need arises

normally without a competitive call

Expansion of the consortium the consortium may itself decide to take in new

participants the contract will specify when this must involve a

competitive call organised by the consortium

competitive calls will comply with principles of: transparency, equal treatment, equal access use of independent experts

21

11 November 2002

Evolution of the consortium with additional funding

The Commission may decide to launch calls open to on-going Ips in order to:

involve particular types of participantse.g. SMEs

cover new activitiese.g. take-up measures

22

11 November 2002

Monitoring

Robust monitoring of each IP by the Commission

by one or possibly a team of project officers

throughannual review mid-term or milestone review (optional)final review

involving external experts at all stages

23

11 November 2002

Audits

Commission may also carry out audits

financial (at least one per IP)

technical

technological

ethical

24

11 November 2002

More Information on the instruments

Regularly updated website on the instruments europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6/networks-ip.html

Brochures and leaflets on the new instrumentsAvailable at Heysel Conference and on Europa as

above

Presentation slideson Europa as above

Guide on “Participating in European Research”

On integrated projects Leonidas.Karapiperis@cec.eu.int