RTD-A.3 Legal Unit - Participation rules for FP 2002-2006 Roma12 12 02Not legally binding Participation & Dissemination Rules for 6th Framework Programme

RTD-A.3 Legal Unit - Participation rules for FP 2002-2006 Roma12 12 02 Not legally binding

Participation & DisseminationRules for

6th Framework Programme2002-2006

(EC)NICOLAS SABATIEREuropean Commission

RDT - Directorate A - Unit 3


Legal Framework

EC TREATY

FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME

SPECIFIC PROGRAMS

PARTICIPATION AND

DISSEMINATION RULES

CONTRACTS

Other relevant EC Regulations:

e.g. EC Financial Regulations

(Budgetary Law)

INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS


General issues

Next steps

Final Adoption by the Council (November 2002)

Development of Model Contracts and work programmes + Calls for proposals (November 2002)

Publication of Calls : 17 December 2002


General IssuesDrafted with the aim of

Simplification: no implementing regulations; less than 10 model-contracts (currently 33)

Flexibility: the work programme may adjust rules to RTD activities’/instruments’ specificity

Autonomy for participants: within the framework of the rules, organisation of relations within the consortium is a matter for participants themselves


Instruments New Networks of excellence, Integrated projects,

Integrated initiatives infrastructures, Collective research projects (Specific research projects for SMEs), Article 169

Traditional Specific targeted projects, Co-operative research projects (Specific research projects for SMEs), Actions to promote and develop human resources and mobility (Some are new), Co-ordination actions, Specific support actions

BUT RULES APPLIES TO ALL


Principles guiding their design

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 instruments to adapt to changing

circumstances, both in science and partnership Increased management autonomy

– to eliminate unnecessary micromanagement While preserving public accountability and

protecting interests of the Community


Classification of the instruments

Instrument Purpose Primarydeliverable

Scale

IP

NoE

169

STRP

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


Objectives of IPs 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 sponsoring

objective-driven research of a European dimension


Types of activities in IPs 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 and when

appropriate its exploitation, will be essential

– the whole carried out in a coherent management

framework


Expected scale of critical mass of an IP

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

millions (but no minimum threshold) Partnership: minimum of three participants from

three different 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 certain groups of countries

Duration: typically three to five years– but more if necessary to deliver the objectives


Objectives of NoE Designed to strengthen Europe’s excellence on

a particular research topic– by integrating the critical mass of expertise needed

to provide European leadership and be a world force

– around a joint programme of activities 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 has a mission to spread excellence beyond its partners


The joint programme of activities of a NoE (1)

A range of new or re-oriented activities– integrating activities

coordinated programming of the partners’ activities

sharing of research platforms/tools/facilities

joint management of the knowledge portfolio

staff mobility and exchanges

relocation of staff, teams and equipment

reinforced electronic communication systems


The joint programme of activities of a NoE (2)

– joint research activities : a programme of joint research to support the network’s goals

development of new research tools and platforms for common use

generating new knowledge to fill gaps in or to extend the collective knowledge portfolio


The joint programme of activities of a NoE(3)

– Activities to spread excellence training researchers and other key staff dissemination and communication activities networking activities to help transfer knowledge to

teams external to the network where appropriate, promoting the exploitation of the

results generated within the network where appropriate, innovation-related activities:

protection of knowledge generated, assessment of the socio-economic impact of the knowledge and technologies generated, developing a plan for use and dissemination of the knowledge, take-up activities (especially for SMEs)


The joint programme of activities of a NoE(4)

– Network management: overall coordination of the joint activities communication with the Commission, reporting activities linked to consortium-level financing and

accounting management and legal issues coordination of the knowledge management activities,

and where appropriate, other innovation-related activities promotion of gender equality science and society issues related to the topics of the

network supporting the governing board and other network

bodiesAll activities within a unified management

structure


Expected scale ofcritical mass of a NoE

Expertise: assembling of the critical mass needed to achieve the ambitious goals of the network– variable from topic to topic– larger networks may involve several hundreds of

researchers– but may be smaller, provided the necessary

ambition and critical mass are achieved Partnership: in general at least six (legal

minimum: 3 from 3 different countries) Duration of Community support: typically 5

years– more if necessary to create durable integration

BUT no more than 7 years


Objectives of Article 169 Enables the Community to participate in

research programmes carried out jointly by a number of MS

Potentially a most powerful instrument– IPs and NoEs integrate individual performers of research– 169s integrate national programmes

But may be difficult to use in large numbers– each requires a co-initiative by national programmes and

the Commission to generate a proposal– long and complex decision-making, as long as co-

decisions of Council and Parliament taken case-by-case– so far untried

the Commission has presented a pilot proposal


Objectives and Activities of STREPs

Designed to generate the knowledge required to improve European competitiveness and to meet the needs of society or Community policies:– by improving existing or developing new products,

processes or services and/or – by proving the viability of new technologies offering

potential economic advantage May combine any of the following types of

activities:– Targeted, well defined and precisely focused research

and technological development– Demonstration component(s) as appropriate– Project management


STREPs main characteristics(1)

STREPs compared to IPs:

– The STREP scale of ambition is much more

limited than that of IPs, consequently :

– Different: Value of activities, Duration, Size of

the consortium, Types of activities, Types of

Calls (EOI-Calls), Evaluation process/key

issues (partly), Negotiation, Consortium

agreement, Implementation (partly), Follow-up

(partly)


STREPs main characteristics(2)

STREPs compared to FP5 RTD projects :

– Similar: Objectives, Scale of ambition, Value,

Duration, Size of consortium, Types of

participants, Calls, Evaluation, Negotiation,

Follow-up, Audits

– Different: Financial regime, Simplified Proposals, Contractual aspects, Consortium

agreement, Collective responsibility,

Implementation, IPR


Objectives and activities of CAs

Designed to promote and support the networking and co-ordination of research and innovation activities at national, regional and European level.– 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.

May combine the following two types of activities – Co-ordination activities– Project management activities


Types of co-ordination Activities

Each CA shall consist of a programme of work, incorporating all or some of the following types of mid/long term collaborative 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.


CAs main characteristics

CAs compared to NoE:– Instrument for ad hoc co-operation between

organisations for a specific purpose - no requirement for durable integration of all activities

– A networking instrument for research funded from other sources (EC/national/regional)

CAs compared to SSAs:– Instrument for more longer term co-operation and

networking compared to the more stand alone activities to be funded by SSAs

CAs compared to IPs and STREPs:– CA is not an instrument to fund research


Objectives and activities of SSAs

Designed to– complement the other FP6 instruments, – help in preparations for future Community research

and technological development policy activities and – 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.

May combine the following two types of activities – Support activities– Project management activities


Types of support activities

Each SSA shall have an action plan, which may consist of one or more (as appropriate on a case by case basis) of the following 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.


SSAs main characteristics

SSAs compared to CAs:– Instrument to support the implementation of the

programme, priority or research objective - in most cases - stand alone events (meetings, conferences, studies etc.)

– Instrument for future oriented activities: research roadmaps, identification of future research objectives

– Instrument for dissemination and uptake of programme results

SSAs compared to IPs and STREPs:– SSA is not an instrument to fund research activities


Participation

Who can participate?

New Every legal entity that contributes to the project (incl. Project managers)

New Associated candidate countries = Member States

New International European interest organisations = Member States


Participation

Minimum number

New 3 from MS or AS, with 2 from MS or Ass. Cand. Countries for all the instruments

1 (MS or AS or Third Country or International organisation) possible for fellowships and specific support actions

Flexibility : Minimum number can be increased

by work-programmes


ParticipationOther countries and other International organisations

INTEGRATING PARTParticipation for allFinancing for INCO countriesFinancing for others if essential to carry out the project

OTHER PARTSParticipation for all those with co-operation agreement

under its conditions; funding if essential.

Participation for the others in activities if necessary to carry out the project; funding if essential.


Instruments to be used in priority

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

From the outset, IPs and NoEs will be the priority means – for implementing those themes where it is already

deemed appropriate– while maintaining the use of specific targeted

research projects, co-ordination actions and specific support actions

In 2004, the Commission will arrange an independent evaluation of the use of the instruments– may lead to an adjustment of their relative weightings


EvaluationCore criteria & Criteria for new instruments To be specified and complemented in work

programmes according to instrument and activity

New Additional criteria Synergies with education, role of women in research,

societal impact Not compulsory

Exclusion criteria Violation of fundamental ethical principles New Financial irregularities (see EC Financial

Regulations)


Evaluation

New Two-stage evaluation procedure If specified in the call for proposals

New Evaluation on a non-anonymous basis Unless otherwise specified in call for proposal

New Manuals on evaluation and on negotiation and selection procedures


Key issues in the evaluation of IPs

Relevance to the objectives of the programme (S&T, S-E, policy objectives of WP)

S&T excellence (focus, progress beyond state-of-art, S&T approach)

Potential impact (ambition,competitiveness, societal problems, European dimension, optimal use of results)

Quality of the consortium (commitment, suitability, complementarity, SMEs)

Quality of the management (organisational structure, project, knowledge, IPR, innovation)

Mobilisation of resources (critical mass, coherence, financial


Key issues in the evaluation of NoE

Relevance to the objectives of the programme (S&T, S-E, policy objectives of WP)

Participants excellence (R&D, suitability, critical mass)

Potential impact (strenghthening S&T excellence, ambition, spreading excellence, durable structuring)

Degree of integration & JPA (deep and durable integration, quality)

Organisation and management (organisational structure, network)


•Relevance to the objectives of the programme (S&T, S-E, policy objectives of WP)

•S&T excellence (focus, progress beyond state-of-art, S&T approach)

•Potential impact (competitiveness, societal problems, European dimension, optimal use of results)

•Quality of the consortium (commitment, suitability, complementarity, SMEs)

•Quality of the management (project, knowledge, IPR, innovation)

•Mobilisation of resources (necessity, coherence, financial plan)

Key issues in the evaluation of STREPs


ImplementationHow? Contractual link of all participants with the

Commission New no more categories : all participants are contractors and

have the same rights & obligations

Contract enters into force and the advance is paid New once signed by the coordinator and the Commission

New other contractors’ written consents are collected by the coordinator and sent to the Commission within two months

= quicker entry into force and payment


ImplementationHow?

Change/addition of participants – New at the request of the coordinator, deemed to

act on behalf of the consortium– New with implicit agreement of the Commission

within 6 weeks– New in IP/NoE, enlargement of the consortium to

new participants and new activities may be foreseen. This enlargement follows then a call launched by the consortium with evaluation of proposals by external experts


Flexibility and autonomy in implementing IPs

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)


Flexibility and autonomy for NoE

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 contract will specify when this must involve a competitive call

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


Implementation of STREPs, CAs and SSAs

For the work plan, the consortium– proposes a detailed plan for the whole duration– and may propose to modify the detailed work plan

but needs approval of the Commission to enter into force and without modifying the overall objectives and deliverables

For the Community contribution– the contract will not specify its distribution between participants

For changes in the consortium– the consortium may modify its composition (subject to

Commission approval, without additional funding, infrequent occurrence)


Financing

Grant for integration

Grant to the budget

Flat-rate

Networks of excellence

Integrated Projects

Specific targeted research projects

Specific research projects for SMEs

Integrated initiatives relating to infrastructure

Actions to promote human resources & mobility

Coordination actions

Specific support actions


Financing

Grant for integration (NoE) New mechanism Calculation basis: degree of integration, number

of researchers to be integrated, characteristics of the field concerned, JPA

not as a %age of the budget for the JPA Payment basis: completion of the JPA + costs

certificates mentioning that the costs incurred are greater than the grant itself

Premium for integration (fixed grant)


Financial regime of NoE

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 therefore receive a fixed grant of €17.5 million (plus bonus for registered doctoral students)

50 researchers € 1 million/year 100 researchers € 2 million/year 150 researchers € 3 million/year 250 researchers € 4 million/year 500 researchers € 5 million/year 1000 researchers and above € 6 million/year

(for intermediate numbers, the grant would be calculated by linear interpolation)


Financing

Grant to the budget

Calculation basis: %age of the preliminary budget of the execution plan

Payment basis: covers a share of the expenditure incurred, necessary for the execution of the indirect action

%age depends on: type of activity participant involved (cost models)


Financing

Cost Models: definition

FC: actual direct and indirect costs

New FCF (variant of FC): actual direct costs + flat rate for indirect costs (20% of total actual direct costs, except subcontracting)

AC: actual additional direct costs + flat rate for indirect costs (20% of total actual additional direct costs, except subcontracting)


Financing

Cost Models: application New Organisation based, not according to accounting

capacities; mandatory or optional; no change allowed during FP6

International organisations, physical persons: ACF Public non-profit - Pending issue

Solution 1: FC or FCF or ACF (optional)solution 2: ACF (optional)

SMEs: FC or FCF (optional)

Other organisations: FC


FinancingType of activity

Research and technological development (including innovation related activity) - 50% (100% AC)

Demonstration - 35% (100% AC) Training - 100% (100% AC) New Consortium Management - reimbursed up to

100% within the limit of 7% of community contribution

Other activities specific to an instrument - 100% (100% AC)


FinancingModalities

New no cost categories but list of ineligible costs New Participants’ own accounting rules New Periodical cost certificates by external auditor New Periodical advances and settlements

yearly for IP and NoE periodicity of settlements to be specified in the

contract for other instruments New No pre-allocation of the EC contribution

between participants (funding is granted to the consortium as a whole)


Reporting and payments schedule for IPs

Advance payment: equal to 85% of the Community contribution anticipated for the first 18 months

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

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


Payments and reporting schedule for

an IP(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


Advance payment: equal to 85% of the Community contribution anticipated for the first 18 months

The consortium will submit to the Commission for its approval an annual report containing:– an outline of previous 12 months’ activities

– financial documents on the costs incurred in implementing the JPA (including cost certificates and management-level justification)

– a detailed joint programme of activities for the following 18 months

Upon acceptance of above, the outstanding advance will be supplemented up to 85% of the anticipated Community contribution for following 18 months

Reporting and payments schedule for NOEs


Advance payment: equal to 85% of the Community contribution anticipated for the first 18+6 months

The consortium submits annual (e.g. 18 month) report containing:– an outline of previous scientific activities reporting period– financial documents on the costs incurred (including cost certificates and

management-level justification)

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 remaining period

Reporting and payments schedule for STREPS


Payments and reporting schedule for a STREP, CA or SSA

(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 if required)

Intermediate payment/

settlement

Detailed work plan

Initial advance

0 6 12 14 18 20 24 26 30 36 38

Months


Consortium agreement

Renewed importance due to the new legal and financial approaches

Regulates internal organisation of consortium, such as i.a.:

management of the project and allocation of the EC financing

agreement on IPR access rights

crisis management


Consortium agreement

New Compulsory except otherwise mentioned in the call for proposal

Not signed nor approved by the Commission

After or (preferably) before signing the contract but some decisions must be made by the participants before signature of contract (e.g. IPR issues)

Non binding guidelines published by the Commission


LiabilityNew Collective responsibility of the

participants

Responsibility of a last resort Limited in proportion to the participant’s share of costs in

the project, up to the total payment they are entitled to receive

IOs, public bodies or entities guaranteed by MS/AS solely responsible for their own debts

Exceptions for specific actions for SME’s and fellowships, and when duly justified for specific support actions


Control and SanctionsObjective to reinforce ex-post controls

To simplify and streamline ex-ante controls: no systematic ex-ante financial controls (for instruments

with collective responsibility) no bank guarantee (for instruments with collective

responsibility)

As a counterbalance to increased autonomy for participants


Control and Sanctions

How?

New Continuous monitoring by Commission with external experts (mandatory for IP and NoE)

Periodical verification of expenditure made (annual for IP & NoE) based on audit certificates

Technical (incl. ethical), technological, and financial audits


Monitoring and audits for IPs

Robust output monitoring by the Commission, involving external experts at all stages

annual review mid-term or milestone review,and final review

Commission may also carry out audits financial (at least one per IP) technical technological ethical


Governance and monitoring for NoE (1)

A network’s governance must ensure institutional engagement by the partner organisations– through e.g. a “governing board” of senior

representatives from the partners

to oversee integration of the partners’ activities


Governance and monitoring for NoE (2)

Robust output monitoring by the Commission, involving external experts at all stages– annual reviews

basis for payment by results triggering a yellow flag/red flag, if a review is failed

– end-of-term review to assess impact of network on strengthening and

spreading excellence Audits carried out by the Commission: financial

(at least one for each NoE, technical, technological, ethical.


Monitoring of STREPs, CAs and

SSAs

Follow-up scheme:– Commission PO assigned

– may foresee mid-term review with assistance of experts (e.g. if duration 3 years or more), with a go/no go decision to continue the project

– may include various types of audits as appropriate


Control and Sanctions

Sanctions

Collective responsibility is also a form of sanction

Exclusion criterion, up to 5 years: financial irregularity + other cases foreseen in Article 93 of the new EC Financial Regulations

Recovery decisions (art. 256 EC Treaty)

Other sanctions in contracts, such as financial penalties


Intellectual property rights (IPR)

Developed on the basis of

Feedback from FP5

Features of the “new instruments” participants may leave/join during the project “larger” projects


Consistency with FP5 (same concepts) Simplification

New Same IPR rules for all instruments (few exceptions)

New Same IPR rules for all participants Increased certainty, in particular regarding

access rights (restricted to what is necessary) Increased emphasis on the management of

knowledge and IP (especially new instruments)

Principles


General concepts Definitions: no major change w.r.t. FP5

“knowledge”, “pre-existing know-how”, “use”, “dissemination”, ...

Ownership: no major changes w.r.t. FP5

resides with the participants (incl. JRC) generating knowledge

exception for SMEs actions : ownership resides with the SMEs, not with the “RTD Performers”

exception for public procurements (Commission buys a result)

transfer: prior notice to other participants+ Commission (possible objection within 30 days)


General concepts Protection

New required but not limited to legal protection (public domain approach, etc. possible)

Publication New allowed if not detrimental to protection prior notice to Commission + other participants

(possible objection within 30 days) Use / dissemination

New compulsory under conditions Commission may disseminate itself if needed


Access rights

General principles

New Granted on written request No sub-licensing (unless explicitly agreed + possible

optional clause for software) Obligatory ARs between participants limited to what

they really need (either for carrying out the project or for using their own knowledge) but broader ARs may be freely negotiated

ARs granted to third parties : Commission may object


Access rights

New features Feedback from FP5: need for pre-existing know-

how (PEKH) to be better safeguarded

New Possibility for a participant to exclude specific pieces of its PEKH from the obligation to grant ARs to the others with the agreement of all participants before the participant concerned signs the contract

(or before entry of a new participant)


FP6 System of Access RightsAccess rights to

pre-existing know-howAccess rights to

knowledge

If a participant needs them for carrying out its own work under the project

For carrying out the project

Royalty-free unless otherwise agreed

before signing the contract

Royalty-free

If a participant needs them for using its own knowledgeFor use

(exploitation + further research)

Non-discriminatory conditions to be agreed

Royalty-free unless otherwise agreed

before signing the contract

Possibility for participants to agree on exclusion of specific pre-existing know-how before signature of the contract (or

before entry of a new participant)

Documents

RTD-A.3 Legal Unit - Participation rules for FP 2002-2006 Roma12 12 02Not legally binding Participation & Dissemination Rules for 6th Framework Programme