11 November 2002 “FP6 Integrated Projects” Leonidas Karapiperis Research DG europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6/networks-ip.html

2 11 November 2002 A wider range of better differentiated instruments New instruments UIntegrated projects (IP) UNetworks of excellence (NoE) UArticle 169 (joint implementation of national programmes) Traditional instruments USpecific targeted research projects UCo-ordination actions USpecific support actions

3 11 November 2002 Principles guiding their design (I) USimplification and streamlining +to minimise the overheads for all concerned whether applicant, contractor or the Commission +to speed up procedures, especially time-to-contract UFlexibility and adaptability +to enable instruments to be applicable throughout the priority themes +to enable projects to evolve

4 11 November 2002 Principles guiding their design (II) UIncreased management autonomy +to eliminate unnecessary micro-management UWhile preserving public accountability and protecting interests of the Community

5 11 November 2002 Classification of the instruments

6 11 November 2002 Instruments to be used in priority (I) UCalls for proposals will identify which instruments are to be used, which have priority, and for what UFrom 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

7 11 November 2002 Instruments to be used in priority (II) UIn 2004, the Commission will arrange an independent evaluation of the use of the instruments +may lead to an adjustment of their relative weightings

8 11 November 2002 Purpose of Integrated Projects (I) UDesigned 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 UEssentially an instrument for supporting objective- driven research of a European dimension

9 11 November 2002 Meaning of integration in IPs UEach IP should comprise a coherent set of component parts UInternal architecture may vary depending on topic, scope and managerial approach of each IP UForms of integration: +“vertical” - full value chain of stakeholders +“horizontal” - multidisciplinarity +“sectoral” - private/public +“financial” - synergy with other schemes (EIB, Eurêka)

November 2002 Activities 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 will also be an essential feature +the whole carried out in a coherent management framework

1 11 November 2002 What is the scale of critical mass (I)? UConcerning 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 million euro +but no minimum threshold, provided necessary ambition and critical mass is achieved

November 2002 What is the scale of critical mass (II)? UConcerning 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 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 entities from certain groups of countries

November 2002 What is the scale of critical mass (III)? UConcerning its duration: typically 3 to 5 years +but more if necessary to deliver the objectives

November 2002 Proposal submission (I) UThrough calls for proposals +may be preceded by expressions of interest to help focus calls and assist in consortium building USimplified proposal-making +requiring only sufficient “management-level” detail +reflecting evolutionary nature of the project  summary description of activities for entire duration  detailed implementation plan only for first 18 months

November 2002 Proposal submission (II) UPossibility of two-stage submission UProposers should make sure they address all the issues which will be examined during evaluation

November 2002 The negotiation process UPossible assistance of external experts UMain 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

November 2002 Reporting and payments schedule (I) UThe 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

November 2002 Reporting and payments schedule (II) UUpon 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

November 2002 Payments and reporting schedule (example of a 4 year contract) Activity report Reported costs Activity reportDetailed work plan Reported costsAdjusted advance Activity reportDetailed work plan Reported costsAdjusted advance Activity report Reported costs Detailed work plan Adjusted advance Detailed work plan Initial advance Months

November 2002 Evolution of the consortium without additional funding UReplacement of a participant + consortium may do so if need arises  normally without a competitive call UExpansion 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

November 2002 Evolution of the consortium with additional funding UThe Commission may decide to launch calls open to on-going Ips in order to: + involve particular types of participants  e.g. SMEs + cover new activities  e.g. take-up measures

2 11 November 2002 Monitoring URobust monitoring of each IP by the Commission + by one or possibly a team of project officers + through  annual review  mid-term or milestone review (optional)  final review +involving external experts at all stages

November 2002 Audits UCommission may also carry out audits +financial (at least one per IP) +technical +technological +ethical

November 2002 More Information on the instruments URegularly updated website on the instruments  europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6/networks-ip.html UBrochures and leaflets on the new instruments  Available at Heysel Conference and on Europa as above UPresentation slides  on Europa as above UGuide on “Participating in European Research” UOn integrated projects 