1. January 2003

2. Opportunities for Universities in FP 6 Dr.-Ing. Martin Grabert KoWi Rue du Trône 98 B 1050 Brussels postmaster@bru.kowi.dewww.kowi.de

3. January 2003 Public expenditures in R&D in the European Union 1997 ERA / FP 6

4. January 2003 Relation of public Gross Expenditures on R&D / Project Funding in 2000 ERA / FP 6

5. January 2003 European Universities: FP5 Contracts (1998 - 2002) ERA / FP 6 Austria284 Belgium534 Bulgaria32 Czech Republic91 Danmark299 Finland328 France864 Germany1612 Greece416 Hungary76 Ireland267 Italy960 Netherlands749 Norway187 Poland197 Portugal285 Romania35 Slovakia32 Slovenia51 Spain765 Sweden706 Switzerland444 Turkey25 United Kingdom2334 Total FP511573 Source: European Commission

6. January 2003 Dimensions of the ERA Concept in FP 6 ERA / FP 6

7. January 2003 The European Research Area concept leading to the Lisbon process  Overcome structural weaknesses > FP 6 / Member state actions  Reduce the gap with US and Japan  Improve impact of European research > Lisbon summit (2000)  Strengthen coherence of activities/policies > Barcelona summit (2002)  Increase public and private RTD efforts > Barcelona summit (2002)  Promote new contract between science and society ERA / FP 6

8. January 2003 Basic ideas for FP6 in the European Research Area concept  From project to program level approach  Longer term, more structural funding  Larger scale projects  Reinforcement of existing instruments (ex. mobility, infrastructures) (ex. mobility, infrastructures)  Variable geometry  Synergies with other instruments  Decentralisation ERA / FP 6

9. January 2003 Legal basis of the Framework Programmes Article 163 1. The Community shall have the objective of strengthening the scientific and technological bases of Community industry and encouraging it to become more competitive at international level, while promoting all the research activities deemed necessary by virtue of other Chapters of this Treaty. 2. For this purpose the Community shall, throughout the Community, encourage undertakings, including small and medium-sized undertakings, research centres and universities in their research and technological development activities of high quality; it shall support their efforts to cooperate with one another, aiming, notably, at enabling undertakings to exploit the internal market potential to the full, in particular through the opening-up of national public contracts, the definition of common standards and the removal of legal and fiscal obstacles to that cooperation.... ERA / FP 6

10. January 2003 Basic philosophy Basic philosophy  sharing risks  sharing costs  sharing results  building-up of critical mass  creation of European added value Basic characteristics Basic characteristics  multi-annual funding  implemented through specific programs  combination of bottom-up and top-down approach  pre-competitive RTD Basic rules Basic rules  transnational, multi-partner cooperation  public calls for proposals  peer review evaluation  selection criteria: scientific excellence and European added value  no national quotas  financial incentives (no institutional funding) Basic Principles of the Framework Programmes ERA / FP 6

11. January 2003 Development of Framework Programmes Budgets ERA / FP 6

12. January 2003 FP 6 timetable Commission Proposal21. February 2001 Framework Program 2002-2006 Commission Proposals30. May 2001 Specific Programs Parliament OPINION14. November 2001 Framework Program Council COMMON POSITION Pol. Acoord 10. December 2001 Parliament 2 nd READING24. April 2002 Framework Program Parliament ADOPTION 15. May 2002 Framework Program Council ADOPTION 3. June 2002 Council + EP ADOPTION30. October 2002 Spec. Programs / Part. Rules Kick-off event (Brussels)11.-13. November 2002 First Calls17. December 2002 First Deadlinesmid March 2003 ERA / FP 6

13. January 2003 ERA / FP 6

14. January 2003 ERA / FP 6

15. January 2003 ERA / FP 6

16. January 2003 Common Principles with the New Instruments  Public (initial) call launched by the Commission  Evaluation by independent Experts (ex-ante)  Core-Consortium as the stable Centre of Activities  Dynamic Consortium Structure  Autonomy in the Management of the Activities  Ex-post Evaluation and Auditing ERA / FP 6 Four Characteristics will be compared in the following for ‘Integrated Projects’ and ‘Networks of Excellence’: Purpose - Definition of Integration - Management Issues - Costs

17. January 2003 IP Integrated Projects Purpose Integrated Projects are designed to give increased impetus to the Community's competitiveness or to address major societal needs by mobilising a critical mass of research and technological development resources and competence. Each Integrated Project should be assigned clearly defined ambitious scientific and technological objectives and should be directed at obtaining specific results applicable in terms of, for instance, products, processes or services. Under these objectives they may include more long-term or“risky”research. Integrated projects are distinguished by the scale of their ambition in terms of research effort and objectives and by their expected impact. Each is expected to assemble the necessary critical mass of activities, expertise and resources to achieve its ambitious objectives. ERA / FP 6

18. January 2003 IP Integrated Projects Meaning of Integration The detailed internal architecture of an integrated project will depend on the complexity and scope of the project, the topic it addresses, the objectives and the managerial approach taken. It should comprise a coherent set of component parts, often in the form of sub-projects, implemented in close co-ordination, which may vary in size and structure according to the tasks to be carried out, each dealing with different aspects of the overall project implementation plan needed to achieve its agreed objectives. ERA / FP 6

19. January 2003 IP Integrated Projects The scope of Consortium management will be defined in the model contract. It may include: collective technical co-ordination; collective technical co-ordination; activities linked to overall financial and accounting management; activities linked to overall financial and accounting management; internal and external administrative co-ordination activities, including communication with the Commission and all reporting; internal and external administrative co-ordination activities, including communication with the Commission and all reporting; management of consortium-level legal and ethical issues; management of consortium-level legal and ethical issues; conflict resolution; conflict resolution; co-ordination of the innovation-related activities; co-ordination of the innovation-related activities; the launching of competitive calls by the consortium and subsequent evaluation and selection processes; the launching of competitive calls by the consortium and subsequent evaluation and selection processes; dialogue with the citizen (organised at consortium level) on science and society issues related to the research activities conducted within the project. dialogue with the citizen (organised at consortium level) on science and society issues related to the research activities conducted within the project. ERA / FP 6

20. January 2003 IP Integrated Projects Costs chargeable to the contract To be chargeable to the contract, costs must be actual and simultaneously fulfil the following requirements: be costs necessary for the project and economical; be costs necessary for the project and economical; be incurred during the lifetime of the project; be incurred during the lifetime of the project; be determined on a historic cost basis in accordance with the normal accounting practices of the participant; be determined on a historic cost basis in accordance with the normal accounting practices of the participant; be recorded in the accounts or in other relevant legal or financial documents or in tax documents; be recorded in the accounts or in other relevant legal or financial documents or in tax documents; exclude any other non-chargeable costs specified in the contract. exclude any other non-chargeable costs specified in the contract. all institution with “state aid” relevant funding will be subjected to the Additional Cost Contract model; all institution with “state aid” relevant funding will be subjected to the Additional Cost Contract model; There are no predefined chargeable cost categories. There are no predefined chargeable cost categories. ERA / FP 6

21. January 2003 NoE Networks of Excellence Purpose Networks of excellence are designed to strengthen scientific and technological excellence on a particular research topic by networking together at European level the critical mass of resources and expertise needed to be a world force in that topic. This expertise will be networked around a joint programme of activities aimed principally at creating a progressive and durable integration of the research activities of the network partners while, of course, at the same time advancing knowledge on the topic. Networks of excellence are therefore an instrument designed primarily to address the fragmentation of European research. Their main deliverable consists of a restructuring and reshaping of the way that research in Europe is carried out on particular research topics. It is important that these networks do not act as “closed clubs”, concentrating only on strengthening excellence inside the network. Each network will also be given a mission to spread excellence beyond the boundaries of its partnership. ERA / FP 6

22. January 2003 NoE Networks of Excellence Meaning of integration Meaning of integration Various elements may demonstrate integration within a network of excellence: research activities in common: co-programming of the participants’ research activities; regular joint execution of research projects; increased complementarity and mutual specialisation of the participants’ activities; common use of resources: sharing of infrastructures and equipment, building common research platforms; exchanges of personnel, relocation of staff, possibly of whole teams and equipment; joint training programmes; common management: creation of joint organisational structures; common approaches to science and society issues; common management of knowledge and intellectual property; interactive working between the participants using electronic communication networks. Participants will be expected to incorporate within the frame of a network most if not all of their activities on the topic. ERA / FP 6

23. January 2003 NoE Networks of Excellence Network management The following activities are included within the broad heading of network management: organisation and management of the joint activities of the network; organisation and management of the joint activities of the network; activities linked to consortium level financial and accounting management and legal issues; activities linked to consortium level financial and accounting management and legal issues; communication with the Commission services and all reporting; communication with the Commission services and all reporting; launching of competitive calls by the consortium for the addition of new participants and the subsequent evaluation and selection processes; launching of competitive calls by the consortium for the addition of new participants and the subsequent evaluation and selection processes; management of the knowledge generated by the network, including protection of intellectual property; management of the knowledge generated by the network, including protection of intellectual property; overseeing the promotion of gender equality within the network; overseeing the promotion of gender equality within the network; support for the work of the governing council and other supervisory bodies. support for the work of the governing council and other supervisory bodies. ERA / FP 6

24. January 2003 NoE Networks of Excellence The financial regime for networks of excellence will be based on the concept that the Community contribution is intended to act as an incentive to overcome the obstacles to integration, without creating any financial dependence that would compromise the continuation of the network beyond the period for which the Community funding is granted. These obstacles to integration are human and cultural, as well as being organisational and financial. In such a context, it is expected that the Community contribution might: take the form of a fixed grant for integration; be calculated on the basis of (a) the number of researchers engaged in the frame of the network’s joint programme of activities, (b) a per capita grant, and (c) on the duration of Community support; take the form of a fixed grant for integration; be calculated on the basis of (a) the number of researchers engaged in the frame of the network’s joint programme of activities, (b) a per capita grant, and (c) on the duration of Community support; be paid in annual instalments depending on the network’s progress towards achieving a lasting integration (i.e. a result based payments system). be paid in annual instalments depending on the network’s progress towards achieving a lasting integration (i.e. a result based payments system). The grant is also intended to complement the resources deployed by the participants in order to carry out the joint programme of activities. The grant is also intended to complement the resources deployed by the participants in order to carry out the joint programme of activities. ERA / FP 6

25. January 2003 FP 6 / NoE Networks of Excellence Calculation of the grant The grant would be calculated on the basis of an amount in € for each researcher engaged on activities within the frame of the network’s joint programme of activities. The amount will be specified in the relevant calls for proposals. It will have been calculated to ensure that it does not exceed one-quarter of the value of the capacities and resources being integrated per researcher. A bonus for PhD students in the NoE will be provided. By way of illustration, the average annual grant to a network could vary with the number of researchers in the following manner: 50 researchers€ 1 million/year 50 researchers€ 1 million/year 100 researchers€ 2 million/year 100 researchers€ 2 million/year 150 researchers€ 3 million/year 150 researchers€ 3 million/year 250 researchers€ 4 million/year 250 researchers€ 4 million/year 500 researchers and above€ 5 million/year 500 researchers and above€ 5 million/year ERA / FP 6

26. January 2003 From Project funding to Program Management  Commission’s target: Massive reduction of contracts and management tasks  Simple estimation: Priority 1 “Genomics” 2.255 M € in 4 fiscal years: 80/20 rule for relation IP / NoE give annually ~ 440 M € / 110 M € average EU-contribution IP ± 15 M € p.a. = 30 IP for FP 6 / P1 average EU-grant NoE ± 5 M € p.a. = 22 NoE for FP 6 / P1  In total some five hundred IP and some four hundred NoE will be funded  This fact makes new cooperation concepts a necessity! ERA / FP 6

27. January 2003 ERA / FP 6 Program Management / Consortium Agreement

28. January 2003 Program Management / Consortium Agreement ERA / FP 6 A Project-Coordination-Committee (PCC) should be the management and coordination body for the project / programA Project-Coordination-Committee (PCC) should be the management and coordination body for the project / program A Sub-Project (SP) - level should be considered: SP should bear limited responsibilities - chairmen of SP Steering Committees should be ex-officio members of PCCA Sub-Project (SP) - level should be considered: SP should bear limited responsibilities - chairmen of SP Steering Committees should be ex-officio members of PCC A General Assembly should be the final decision making body with clearly defined voting proceduresA General Assembly should be the final decision making body with clearly defined voting procedures A right to Veto the accession of new partners should be granted to every partnerA right to Veto the accession of new partners should be granted to every partner Some basic issues to be considered in the CA

29. January 2003 Consortium Management IP ERA / FP 6

30. January 2003 Consortium Management NoE ERA / FP 6 European Commission Coordinator Project Coordination Committee PCC Project Office External Advisory Board Partner 1 Partner 2 Partner N-1 Partner N Technical / Technological Panel Financial Panel Public Relations Panel Information Recommendations Reporting Approval Reporting Order for Execution Request for Execution Reporting and/or Advice OPTIONAL Execution of ‘Joint Program of Activities’

31. January 2003 FP 6 / EoI Expression of Interest The Commission issued an Expression of Interest call 20 March 2002. The purpose of this activity was twofold: 1.Prior to the formal adoption of FP6 and the Specific Programmes, and without pre-empting the results of the legislative process, the Commission would like to consult the research community on its readiness to prepare research actions using the new instruments for topics within the Priority Thematic Areas of Research. 2.This initiative will assist the Commission in preparing Work Programmes, as well as defining the scope of the first calls for proposals of FP6 envisaged later this year. It will also facilitate the understanding by the research community of the potential of the new instruments. ERA / FP 6 Deadline was 7 June 2002 - exclusively electronic submission – ~12.000 EoI were send Data published by the Commission in late September

32. January 2003 FP 6 / EoI Expression of Interest: Distribution to Priorities of Submissions (Σ 11855 EoI) ERA / FP 6 Source: European Commission

33. January 2003 FP 6 / EoI Expression of Interest: Distribution to Priorities of four Countries ERA / FP 6 Source: European Commission

34. January 2003 FP 6 / EoI Expression of Interest: Profiles of Priorities of four Countries ERA / FP 6 Source: European Commission [%]

35. January 2003 Rules of Participation ERA / FP 6 General Aspects: Rules of Participation and for dissemination of research results are subject to the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the TreatyRules of Participation and for dissemination of research results are subject to the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty The Rules of Participation were adopted 5 November 2002The Rules of Participation were adopted 5 November 2002 No separate implementing regulation foreseen (contrary to FP 5)No separate implementing regulation foreseen (contrary to FP 5) Minimum Number of Participants: For IP and NoE: three legal entities from three different Member States or Associated Countries, of which at least two should be Member States or Associated Candidate Countries.For IP and NoE: three legal entities from three different Member States or Associated Countries, of which at least two should be Member States or Associated Candidate Countries. For other instruments: two legal entities of which at least one should be a Member State or Associated Candidate Country.For other instruments: two legal entities of which at least one should be a Member State or Associated Candidate Country. Participation of individual entities possible (for instance: EEIG, grants)Participation of individual entities possible (for instance: EEIG, grants) The work programme may specify a higher minimum number of participantsThe work programme may specify a higher minimum number of participants

36. January 2003 Rules of Participation ERA / FP 6 Implementation: All participants are contractually linked to the Commission through CoordinatorAll participants are contractually linked to the Commission through Coordinator “Joint and Several Liability” no longer mandatory for the participants (but stipulate “Technical Collective Responsibility”)“Joint and Several Liability” no longer mandatory for the participants (but stipulate “Technical Collective Responsibility”) Changes in consortium membership - transparency of procedures - evaluation with assistance of independent experts - with Commission’s approvalChanges in consortium membership - transparency of procedures - evaluation with assistance of independent experts - with Commission’s approval Regulation for additional financial contribution by the CommunityRegulation for additional financial contribution by the Community Three forms of Community financial contribution: “grant to the budget”, e.g. for IP “grant to the budget”, e.g. for IP “grant for integration”, e.g. for NoE “grant for integration”, e.g. for NoE “lump sum”, e.g. for fellowships “lump sum”, e.g. for fellowships Audit certificate by (external) auditors will be requiredAudit certificate by (external) auditors will be required

37. January 2003 Rules of Participation ERA / FP 6 Follow-up and Monitoring: reinforcing ex-post controls to reduce ex-ante controlsreinforcing ex-post controls to reduce ex-ante controls permanent follow-up by the Commission (project officer or team of project officers) assisted by independent expertspermanent follow-up by the Commission (project officer or team of project officers) assisted by independent experts technical, technological and financial auditstechnical, technological and financial audits Possible sanctions: exclusion criterion: financial irregularitiesexclusion criterion: financial irregularities recovery decisions (art. 256 EC Treaty)recovery decisions (art. 256 EC Treaty) other sanctions to be defined in contractsother sanctions to be defined in contracts

38. January 2003 Rules of Participation ERA / FP 6 Intellectual Property Rights: as in FP 5: participants own results they have generatedparticipants own results they have generated emphasis on use of results, dissemination if appropriate or if results are not usedemphasis on use of results, dissemination if appropriate or if results are not used new in FP 6: provisions relating to access rights are the same for all participantsprovisions relating to access rights are the same for all participants simpler table summarising the access rightssimpler table summarising the access rights protection of pre-existing know-how, no obligatory access rights between different projects protection of pre-existing know-how, no obligatory access rights between different projects control of pre-existing know-how by its ownercontrol of pre-existing know-how by its owner

39. January 2003 Human Resources and Mobility in FP 6 ERA / FP 6 Science, research and developmentEuropean Commission Marie Curie Schemes Host Fellowships for Early-Stage Research Training Conferences and Training Courses Research Training Networks Chairs Intra-European Fellowships Host Fellowships for Transfer of Knowledge Advanced Training and Excellence Transfer of Knowledge Early-Stage Training Profile of Fellows  4 years experience or Ph.D. < 4 years experience Teams Awards International Fellowships Re-integration

40. January 2003 Human Resources and Mobility in FP6 ERA / FP 6 Science, research and developmentEuropean Commission Marie Curie Schemes Continuity and Evolution Bottom-up programmeBottom-up programme Marie Curie label generalisedMarie Curie label generalised Opening of schemes to 3 rd country nationalsOpening of schemes to 3 rd country nationals No age limit, but experience criterionNo age limit, but experience criterion Reintegration measure (including incentives to return to Europe)Reintegration measure (including incentives to return to Europe) Excellence promotionExcellence promotion Major Features

41. January 2003 Mobility Challenges It has been recognised that mobility is an essential element in the construction of the European Research Area, so any remaining general obstacles to mobility of workers and students affect researchers considerably. Differences in the social security systems and levels of taxation in different Member States may make it unattractive to move from countries with a high level of social security benefits (for instance, a long maternity leave) or to countries with high taxation and social security contributions. CREST High-Level Expert Group on “Improving Mobility”, June 2001* * http://www.kowi.de/rp6/default.htm ERA / FP 6

42. January 2003 Mobility Challenges Third country researchers do not enjoy free movement as EU citizens do. This can pose problems for third country researchers, active in the EU, to travel to non-Schengen countries, for instance for scientific conferences or for the use of special research infrastructures. Concerning recognition of diplomas, non-recognition is often based on the presumption that training obtained in another Member State is insufficient and that further training has to be followed in the host Member State. The barriers to intersectorial mobility … were not limited to the administrative and legal issues …, but also extended to the lack of understanding of the nature of the other sector. ERA / FP 6

43. January 2003 Conclusions Concepts for the future  ERA is the new political concept to support this endeavour.  Ultimate goal as declared by the Lisbon summit, June 2000: To make the EU the world’s most competitive and dynamic knowledge economy in ten years time. More concrete the Barcelona summit, March 2002: target is 3% GDP for R&D by 2010 in all member states.  FP 6 is only one part of the puzzle. It represents ~25 % of the research project funding presently distributed in competitive schemes in the EU.  ERA has opened a new debate on the level of national funding organisations to combine their efforts.

44. January 2003 Thank you for your attention