Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

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.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "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."— Presentation transcript:

1 10/10/ 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

2 10/10/ NCP presentation Objective è 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. l 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.

3 10/10/ NCP presentation Activities è CAs combine the following two types of activities l 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. l Project management activities

4 10/10/ NCP presentation Expected scale è Resources: each CA must assemble the resources needed to achieve its objectives l budget may range from hundreds of thousands up to several millions of € and involve up to several of person-years  but no minimum threshold è Partnership: l minimum of three participants from three different countries  but in practice likely to be more è Duration: typically two to three years  but exceptionally more if duly justified as necessary to deliver the objectives

5 10/10/ NCP presentation FINANCIAL REGIME (1) è Community support will be in the form of a “grant to the budget” è Paid as a contribution to actual costs l that are incurred, economic and necessary for the project, determined according to own rules l that are recorded in the accounts of the participants  or, when provided for in the contract, in the accounts of third parties l that exclude indirect taxes…

6 10/10/ NCP presentation FINANCIAL REGIME (2) è Annually, each participant to provide a summary cost statement  certified by an independent auditor (if required)  supported by a management-level justification of costs è Two cost models: l FCF: Full actual direct costs and a flat rate of 20% on all direct costs apart from subcontracting; l AC: Additional cost model covering all non recurring costs and a flat rate of 20% on all direct costs apart from subcontracting.

7 10/10/ NCP presentation FINANCIAL REGIME (3) è Maximum rates of support for FCF participants l Up to 100% for co-ordination activities l 100% for project management (up to 7% of EC contribution to the project) è AC participants supported at up to 100% of additional costs for all components of the project (+ recurring costs for project management activities)

8 10/10/ NCP presentation PARTICIPATION/FINANCING

9 10/10/ NCP presentation EVALUATION PROCESS è Calls for proposals l published in the OJ, via CORDIS web-site, via NCPs è Simplified proposal-making l limited to sufficient “management level” detail è Evaluation by a peer-review system l similar to the one in FP5 è 6 Key evaluation criteria

10 10/10/ NCP presentation EVALUATION CRITERIA (1) è Relevance to the objectives of the programme  the proposed project addresses the scientific, technical, socio-economic and policy objectives of the work programme. è 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.

11 10/10/ NCP presentation EVALUATION CRITERIA (2) è 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. è 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.

12 10/10/ NCP presentation EVALUATION CRITERIA (3) è 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. è 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.

13 10/10/ NCP presentation THE PARTS/CONTENT OF A PROPOSAL PART B PROPOSAL CONTENT 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

14 10/10/ NCP presentation PROPOSAL SELECTION PROCEDURE OfficialOfficial Journal CORDISCORDIS NCPsNCPs CALL FOR PROPOSALS Eligibility Check: Commission EVALUATION: Peer review principles/ independent experts NEGOTIATION INFORMATION MARKING AND PRIORITY ORDER OF PROPOSALS Panel (optional) SIGNATURE OF CONTRACT Programme Committee FUNDING SCENARIO(s) Commission

15 10/10/ NCP presentation CONTRACTUAL ASPECTS (1) è Single contract between EC and (as the case may be): l All the participants l A common legal structure (association, EEIG, etc.) representing them legally è Content of the contract l Core contract  max. EC contribution (co-ordination, management), but no distribution between partners l Technical annex (Annex 1)  subcontracts exceeding limit (as specified in model contract) l General conditions (Annex 2) l Specific conditions (Annex 3)

16 10/10/ NCP presentation CONTRACTUAL ASPECTS (2) è Rights and obligations of the participants: l consortium agreement l coordinator l collective responsibility l identical intellectual property rules for all participants For More Info See: groups/model-contract/index en.html)

17 10/10/ NCP presentation IMPLEMENTATION è Work plan l the consortium proposes a detailed plan for the whole duration in the proposal l 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 è Community contribution  contract not specify distribution between participants è Changes in the consortium  the consortium may modify its composition (subject to Commission approval, without additional funding, infrequent occurrence)

18 10/10/ 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 Months

19 10/10/ NCP presentation MONIOTORING è Follow-up scheme: l Commission PO assigned l may foresee mid-term review with assistance of experts (if duration >3 years), with a go/no go decision to continue the project l may include technical, financial, technological and/or ethical audits

20 10/10/ NCP presentation ACCESS RIGHTS

21 10/10/ NCP presentation Main characteristics è CAs compared to NoEs: l Instrument for ad hoc co-operation between organisations for a specific purpose - no requirement for durable integration of all activities l A networking instrument for research funded from other sources (EC/national/regional) è CAs compared to SSAs: l Instrument for more longer term co-operation and networking compared to the more stand alone activities to be funded by SSAs è CAs compared to IPs and STREPs: l CA is not an instrument to fund research

22 10/10/ 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

23 10/10/ NCP presentation Objective è Specific Support Actions are intended l to complement the other FP6 instruments, l to help in preparations for future Community research and technological development policy activities and l 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.

24 10/10/ NCP presentation Activities è SSAs combine the following two types of activities l 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. l Project management activities

25 10/10/ NCP presentation Expected scale è Resources: each SSA must assemble the resources needed to achieve its objectives l budget may range from hundreds of thousands up to several millions of € and involve up to several of person-years  but no minimum threshold è Partnership: l Either a single, or a larger number of legal entities,  as specified in the relevant calls for proposals. è Duration: typically two to three years  but exceptionally more if duly justified as necessary to deliver the objectives

26 10/10/ NCP presentation Call Process è Calls for proposals/Calls for tender l Published in the OJ, via CORDIS web-site, via NCPs è Calls for tender for SSAs l Where the legal entities are identified in the WP l 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.

27 10/10/ NCP presentation EVALUATION CRITERIA (1) è 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. è 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.

28 10/10/ NCP presentation EVALUATION CRITERIA (2) è 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.

29 10/10/ NCP presentation EVALUATION CRITERIA (3) è Quality of the management  the project management is credible in terms of professional qualifications, experience, track record and capacity to deliver. è Mobilisation of resources  the project provides for the resources (personnel, equipment, financial…) necessary for success;  the overall financial plan for the project is adequate.

30 10/10/ NCP presentation Implementation è Same as for CA and STREPs: l Financial regime - funding models FC, FCF and AC l Participation/financing l Submission, evaluation and negotiation process - except that some SSAs can be evaluated by the Commission staff l The contractual structure - specific Annex III for the SSAs l Description of work for the full duration l Reporting, payment schedule and monitoring process

31 10/10/ NCP presentation Main characteristics è SSAs compared to CAs: l Instrument to support the implementation of the programme, priority or research objective - in most cases - stand alone events (meetings, conferences, studies etc.) l Instrument for future oriented activities: research roadmaps, identification of future research objectives l Instrument for dissemination and uptake of programme results è SSAs compared to IPs and STREPs: l SSA is not an instrument to fund research activities

32 10/10/ NCP presentation Classification of the instruments

33 10/10/ NCP presentation INFO INSTRUMENTS è Practical guides to individual instruments are available on the DG Research website: l

34 10/10/ NCP presentation Need more information? Morten Møller Tel:+32/(0)2/ Fax:+32/(0)2/


Download ppt "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."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google