Rompre avec le pass

1
FP6 Networks of excellence
An instrument for tackling the fragmentation of
European research (as of October 2002)
europa.eu.int/comm/research/nfp/networks-ip.html
2
Objectives

• Designed to strengthen Europes 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

3
The joint programme of activities (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

4
The joint programme of activities(2)

• joint research activities a programme of joint
  research to support the networks 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

5
The joint programme of activity(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)

6
The joint programme of activity(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
  bodies
• All activities within a unified management
  structure

7
Critical mass

• 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

8
Financial regime (1)

• Community support targeted at overcoming the
  barriers to a durable integration
• these barriers are mainly organisational,
  cultural and human ? cannot be quantified in
  normal accounting terms
• Has led to the concept of an incentive, taking
  the form of a global fixed grant for
  integration

9
Financial regime (2)

• A fixed grant for integration acting as an
  incentive, calculated on basis
• of the degree of integration
• of the total number of researchers
• that make up the research capacities of the
  partners on the topic of the network
• where a researcher has a PhD or at least four
  years research experience
• with a bonus for registered doctoral students
• of the characteristics of the field of research
• of the joint programme of activities

10
Financial regime (3)

• 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)

11
Payments regime

• Annual payments of the grant will be paid on the
  basis of results
• i.e. will depend on a progressive advance towards
  a durable integration
• with an additional check that costs of at least
  the value of the grant were incurred in
  implementing the joint programme of activity

12
Evaluation process (1)

• Calls for proposals normally preceded by
  expressions of interest
• Simplified proposal-making
• reflecting evolutionary nature of the network
• Evaluation by a strengthened peer review system
• in stages, possibly involving individual reviews,
  panel sessions, hearings of applicants...

13
Evaluation process (2)

• Key issues to be addressed during evaluation
• potential impact on strengthening Europes
  excellence
• collective excellence of the networks members
• extent, depth and lasting nature of the
  integration
• contribution to spreading excellence
• management and governance of the network

14
Measuring integration

• In the proposal, participants will include
  possible qualitative and quantitative indicators
  for measuring progress towards integration
• The main factors to be examined
• extent of mutual specialisation and mutual
  complementarity
• sharing and development for common use of
  research infrastructure, equipment, tools and
  platforms
• regular joint execution of research projects
• interactive working through electronic
  communication systems
• joint management of the knowledge portfolio
• joint training programme (researchers-other key
  staff)
• coherent management framework

15
Initial contract and advance payment (1)

• The contract will specify the maximum Community
  contribution, but not its distribution among
  participants
• consortium autonomy
• elimination of major source of micro-management
• An annex contains
• overall description of the network
• detailed joint programme of activity only for
  first 18 months
• Advance payment equal to 85 of the Community
  contribution anticipated for the first 18 months

16
Initial contract and advance payment (2)

• Simplified signature procedure
• faster entry into force
• The consortium designates a coordinator
• liaison with Commission,
• receives and distributes the grant
• Consortium agreement is a prerequisite

17
Reporting and payments schedule

• 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

18
Governance and monitoring (1)

• A networks 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

19
Governance and monitoring (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

20
Flexibility and autonomy of implementation

• For the joint programme of activities, 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 activities
• For changes in the network partnership
• the partnership may itself decide to take in new
  partners (without additional funding)
• the Commission may decide to launch calls to add
  partners (with additional funding)

21
Elements to be particularly looked at (1)

• Demonstrated need for structuring
• description of fragmentation in the topic
• existence of excellent capacities in Europe in
  the topic
• ? a network of excellence could constitute an
  answer to the fragmentation problem identified

22
Elements to be particularly looked at (2)

• Features of the network planned
• composition of the partnership presence of key
  excellent actors
• potential synergies/complementarity/specialisation
  among the members
• quality /degree of integration proposed

23
Elements to be particularly looked at (3)

• Viability of the network beyond the period
• awareness of high-decision level representatives
  of the participating organisations strong
  commitment
• security regarding networks funding,
  particularly beyond the period

24
More information

• Regularly updated website on the instruments
  europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6/networks-ip.html
• brochures and leaflets on the new instruments
  available at Heysel conference and on Europa as
  above
• Presentation slides on Europa as above
• Networks of excellence colette.renier_at_cec.eu.int