10/10/02 - 1 NCP presentation An outline of the implementation of Co-ordination Actions (CAs) in the...

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

Co-ordination Actions in FP6


Objective

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. 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.


Activities CAs combine the following two types of

activities 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.

Project management activities


Expected scale Resources: each CA must assemble the resources

needed to achieve its objectives budget may range from hundreds of thousands up to

several millions of € and involve up to several of person-years

but no minimum threshold

Partnership: minimum of three participants from three different

countries but in practice likely to be more

Duration: typically two to three years but exceptionally more if duly justified as necessary to deliver

the objectives


FINANCIAL REGIME (1)

Community support will be in the form of a “grant to the budget”

Paid as a contribution to actual costs that are incurred, economic and necessary for

the project, determined according to own rules that are recorded in the accounts of the

participants or, when provided for in the contract, in the

accounts of third parties

that exclude indirect taxes…


FINANCIAL REGIME (2) Annually, each participant to provide a

summary cost statement certified by an independent auditor (if required) supported by a management-level justification of costs

Two cost models: FCF: Full actual direct costs and a flat rate of 20%

on all direct costs apart from subcontracting; AC: Additional cost model covering all non

recurring costs and a flat rate of 20% on all direct costs apart from subcontracting.


FINANCIAL REGIME (3)

Maximum rates of support for FCF participants Up to 100% for co-ordination activities 100% for project management (up to 7% of EC

contribution to the project)

AC participants supported at up to 100% of additional costs for all components of the project (+ recurring costs for project management activities)


PARTICIPATION/FINANCINGPARTICIPATION AND FINANCING POSSIBILITIES BY COUNTRY OF ESTABLISHMENT OF

PARTICIPANT

Participant’s country ofestablishment

Participation Financing

European Union Member States,JRC

Rightfully Rightfully

Associated Candidate Countries Rightfully Rightfully

Other Associated Countries Rightfully Rightfully

International organisations ofEuropean interest

Rightfully Rightfully

Russia, New IndependentStates, Mediterranean Countries,Developing countries (with orwithout a co-operationagreement)

Rightfully over and above theminimum threshold

Within the limits of the budgetavailable for international co-operation activities in thecontext the thematic priorities

Third countries having a co-operation agreement


If Community contribution isnecessary and foreseen by theWork Programme

Other third countries If participation is foreseen or ifit is necessary for carrying outthe project

If Community contribution isforeseen or if it is essential forcarrying out the project

Other internationalorganisations


If Community contribution isforeseen in the work programmeor if it is essential for carryingout the project


EVALUATION PROCESS

Calls for proposals published in the OJ, via CORDIS web-site, via

NCPs Simplified proposal-making

limited to sufficient “management level” detail Evaluation by a peer-review system

similar to the one in FP5 6 Key evaluation criteria


EVALUATION CRITERIA (1)

Relevance to the objectives of the programme

the proposed project addresses the scientific, technical, socio-economic and policy objectives of the work programme.

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.


EVALUATION CRITERIA (2) 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.

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.



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.

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.


THE PARTS/CONTENT OF A PROPOSALPART B

PROPOSALCONTENT

• 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


PROPOSAL SELECTION PROCEDURE

•Official JournalOfficial Journal•CORDISCORDIS•NCPsNCPs

CALL FOR CALL FOR PROPOSALSPROPOSALS

Eligibility Check: CommissionEligibility Check: CommissionEVALUATION: EVALUATION: Peer review principles/Peer review principles/

independent expertsindependent experts

NEGOTIATIONNEGOTIATION

INFORMATIONINFORMATION

MARKING AND MARKING AND PRIORITY PRIORITY ORDER OF ORDER OF

PROPOSALSPROPOSALS Panel (optional)Panel (optional)

SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTSIGNATURE OF CONTRACT

Programme CommitteeProgramme Committee

FUNDING FUNDING SCENARIO(s)SCENARIO(s)

CommissionCommission


CONTRACTUAL ASPECTS (1) Single contract between EC and (as the case may

be): All the participants A common legal structure (association, EEIG, etc.)

representing them legally Content of the contract

Core contract max. EC contribution (co-ordination, management), but no

distribution between partners Technical annex (Annex 1)

subcontracts exceeding limit (as specified in model contract) General conditions (Annex 2) Specific conditions (Annex 3)


CONTRACTUAL ASPECTS (2) Rights and obligations of the participants:Rights and obligations of the participants:

consortium agreement coordinator collective responsibility identical intellectual property rules for all

participants

For More Info See:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6/working-groups/m

odel-contract/index en.html)


IMPLEMENTATION Work plan

the consortium proposes a detailed plan for the whole duration in the proposal

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

Community contribution contract not specify distribution between participants

Changes in the consortium the consortium may modify its composition (subject to

Commission approval, without additional funding, infrequent occurrence)


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

0 6 12 14 18 24 26 30 36 38

Months


MONIOTORING Follow-up scheme:

Commission PO assigned

may foresee mid-term review with assistance of experts (if duration >3 years), with a go/no go decision to continue the project

may include technical, financial, technological and/or ethical audits


ACCESS RIGHTS

Access rights topre-existing know-how

Access rights to knowledgeresulting from the project

Yes, if a participant needs them for carrying out his own work under the project

For carrying outthe project

Royalty-free

unless otherwise agreedbefore signing the contract

Royalty-free

Yes, if a participant needs them for using his own knowledgeFor use purposes

(exploitation +further research) On non-discriminatory and reasonable conditions to

be agreed

Royalty-free

unless otherwise agreedbefore signing the contract

Possibility for participants to agree on exclusion ofspecific pre-existing know-how of a participant

from this obligation before this participant signs thecontract (or before entry of a new participant)


Main characteristics CAs compared to NoEs:

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


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


Objective

Specific Support Actions are intended to complement the other FP6 instruments, to help in preparations for future Community

research and technological development policy activities and

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.


Activities SSAs combine the following two types of activities

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.

Project management activities


Expected scale Resources: each SSA must assemble the

resources needed to achieve its objectives budget may range from hundreds of thousands up

to several millions of € and involve up to several of person-years

but no minimum threshold

Partnership: Either a single, or a larger number of legal entities,

as specified in the relevant calls for proposals.

Duration: typically two to three years but exceptionally more if duly justified as necessary to

deliver the objectives


Call Process Calls for proposals/Calls for tender

Published in the OJ, via CORDIS web-site, via NCPs Calls for tender for SSAs

Where the legal entities are identified in the WP 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.



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.

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.


EVALUATION CRITERIA (2) 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.



Quality of the management the project management is credible in terms of

professional qualifications, experience, track record and capacity to deliver.

Mobilisation of resources the project provides for the resources (personnel,

equipment, financial…) necessary for success; the overall financial plan for the project is adequate.


Implementation Same as for CA and STREPs:

Financial regime - funding models FC, FCF and AC Participation/financing Submission, evaluation and negotiation process -

except that some SSAs can be evaluated by the Commission staff

The contractual structure - specific Annex III for the SSAs

Description of work for the full duration Reporting, payment schedule and monitoring

process


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


Classification of the instrumentsInstrument Purpose Primary

deliverableScale

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)


INFO INSTRUMENTS

Practical guides to individual instruments are available on the DG Research website:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/nfp/networks-ip.html


Need more information?

Morten Møller

Tel : +32/(0)2/296.35.26Fax : +32/(0)2/296.83.88

E-mail: [email protected]

Date post:	11-Dec-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	elena-wain
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

10/10/02 - 1 NCP presentation An outline of the implementation of Co-ordination Actions (CAs) in the...

Documents