How to participate in FP6 Department of Communications / Administrative Staff A practical guide for researchers, research managers and administrators at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam F(ramework) P(rogramme) 2004 Guido Leerdam Department of Communications Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam De Boelelaan 1091 1081 HV Amsterdam +31 (0)20 4445652 [email protected] Albert Groenendijk Administrative Staff Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam De Boelelaan 1105 1081 HV Amsterdam +31 (0)20 4445654 [email protected] 1st edition September 2003 2nd edition January 2004 Disclaimer © 3rd revised edition, November 2004, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam All information in this guide is offered for use at the sole discretion and on the sole responsibility of the users The authors cannot accept any responsibility or liability for the use made of this document or for any consequences arising therefrom. Reproduction is NOT authorized without prior written agreement. Requests to use or reproduce any of the contents of this guide should be directed to the authors. Contents 0. Introductory notes 1. Background to the Framework Programmes 1.1. Introduction 1.2. Framework Programmes in perspective 1.3. The Sixth Framework Programme 1.4. FP6 priorities 1.5. New ERA for European research: combating fragmentation 1.6. Sharing skills and results 1.7. Training for better performance page 5 7 7 7 7 8 9 9 9 2. FP6 in a nutshell 2.1. Specific programmes or sections 2.2. Sections and instruments 2.3. Other possibilities outside the FP 11 11 12 12 3. The FP6 instruments 3.1. Networks of Excellence (NoEs) 3.2. Integrated Projects (IPs) 3.3. Article 169 3.4. Specific Targeted Research Projects (STREPs) 3.5. Coordination Actions (CAs) 3.6. Specific Support Actions (SSAs) 3.6.1. Marie Curie Fellowships 15 15 17 17 18 18 18 18 4. 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4. 4.5. The Rules for Participation Participants Instruments Contractual provisions Financial provisions: cost models Intellectual property rights (IPR) 23 23 23 24 25 26 5. How to write a competitive proposal in FP6 27 6. Proposal submission and evaluation 6.1. Proposal submission 6.2. Proposal evaluation 31 31 32 7. Contractual regulations 7.1. Contract negotiation 7.2. Contract signature 35 35 36 8. Project execution 8.1. Outline of collective responsibility 8.2. Cost models and VAT 8.3. Controls 8.4. Reporting 8.5. Payment modalities 39 39 40 41 41 42 9. Intellectual Property Rights issues 9.1. Definitions 9.2. IPR in the Consortium Agreement 47 47 48 10. Support and advice 49 Annexes 1. Synopsis of RTD priorities, areas and actions in FP6 specific programmes 2. List of groups of target countries for specific measures in support of INCO 3. Outline: what documentation is needed to prepare an FP6 RTD proposal? 4. Examples of administrative forms A1, A2, A3 5. Basic contract outline 51 51 55 59 61 65 6. Memorandum of Agreement (example) 67 0. Introductory notes Universities are becoming more and more dependent on external funding. The Framework Programmes for research and technological development (RTD) of the European Union form one of the most important sources in this field. During the last decade, the Vrije Universiteit has gained a firm foothold in ‘Brussels’, as we can see from the results of Framework 4 (1994-1998) and 5 (1998-2002). A recent quick scan has shown that at least a few hundred of the RTD projects from these programmes have been carried out on the VU premises. The VU and the VU University Medical Center have featured prominently in major RTD programmes covering topics such as quality of life, the information society, energy and environment, sustainable development and, of course, the training and mobility of researchers (fellowship programmes). The Sixth Framework Programme (FP6) is currently under way, covering the period from 2003 to 2007. A vast amount of material giving information on the programme’s contents, EU policy, the financial and contractual rules and much more is being churned out at high speed. Both experienced researchers and junior postdocs face the challenge of ploughing their way through this Internet and paper jungle in a quick and efficient manner. The aim of this guide is practical: to provide researchers, research managers, financial and administrative officers at the faculties and institutes throughout the university, the medical centre and its commercial affiliates with up-to-date information about ‘how to participate’. We have tried to do this as concisely and as systematically as possible. In the pages to come, you will read: - how to understand the FP and the relevant EU policies; - how to manage the enormous amount of information material concerning the specific programmes in FP6 and the rules that govern them; - where to find and how to use the advisory institutions that provide further assistance. Of course, it is impossible for us to give an in-depth account of the contents of the specific programmes – or to be more precise, the thematic priorities – in FP6. Clearly, that is not our specialism but yours. But what we can do is demystify the intricate process of nudging yourself into the complex and challenging world of Brussels’ funding principles. It is our belief that if this is done well, the university has a lot to gain in the coming four years! Those of you who simply want to know where to obtain information material and preliminary advice about EU research funding should turn to our ‘Support and advice’ chapter at the back of this guide, and read the rest later. Last but not least, we would like to thank Bart Crusius (VU University Medical Center) and Anco Lankreijer (Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences) who have been so kind as to read a preliminary version of the first edition of this guide and submit critical comments; Fanneke Cnossen for the graphic design and Stefan Martínez (both Communications Dept., Vrije Universiteit) for layout and (web)navigational services, and finally the Taalcentrum-VU for correcting us in our English endeavours. Should you have any remarks or questions about the contents of this guide, please do not hesitate to contact us! Note: much of the information in this guide (addresses, telephone and fax numbers, e-mail addresses, website URLs, reference numbers etc.) is subject to change. The editing of the first edition of this text was rounded off in mid-July 2003. In preparing the second edition, we received valuable comments from Mr Bert Bohlander (UNITE), which we have used to both your advantage and our own. The third edition contains additions and corrections to various sections throughout the guide, to keep all the information as up to date as possible. For example, we have inserted a few lines about the upcoming new Framework Programme (FP7) in view of the ongoing political preparations undertaken by the Dutch EU Presidency and others. Of course, all suggestions regarding the guide remain more than welcome. 5 6 1. Background to the Framework Programmes 1.1. Introduction Since the launch of the First Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (RTD) in 1984, the institutions within the European Union (EU) have played a leading role in initiating and organizing multidisciplinary research and cooperation inside Europe and beyond. Yet, while Europe leads the way in many important areas of scientific research, it still finds it difficult to transform scientific breakthroughs into commercial products and services which are both competitive and sustainable. To create a coherent impact on EU research initiatives, the Sixth Framework Programme will focus on high-quality research with a lasting or structuring impact which also strengthens Europe’s science and technology foundations, and on maximum ‘added value’ from transnational cooperation, ‘progressive integration’ of relevant activities and participants, and on concentrating Europe’s effort on fewer priorities. 1.2. Framework Programmes in perspective To understand the procedures and the rules for participation described in this guide, it is important to take into account several basic principles governing Framework Programmes. 1. The European Commission does not itself undertake or participate in RTD projects (except via its Joint Research Centres), but does offer financial support to carefully described work or research by private and public research bodies, companies and institutions. 2. Generally, proposals for projects must be submitted in response to a specific call for proposals or tenders published in the Official Journal of the European Union, which can be found on the Community’s most prominent website CORDIS. 3. The project’s content must fully correspond to objectives set out in one of the programmes of the Framework Programme, while the partners involved must satisfy all the eligibility criteria, and their proposal must comply with the scientific, thematic and formal requirements of the call. 4. Proposals received in response to a call which satisfy the above requirements are evaluated by a panel of independent experts in the various fields concerned. 5. Projects are selected solely on the basis of their quality, measured by specific criteria such as scientific and technical quality and socioeconomic impact, and on condition that they comply with the programme objectives, within the limits of the budgets available. There are no national quotas. 1.3. The Sixth Framework Programme (FP6) FP6 will be instrumental in achieving the March 2000 Lisbon European Council goal of turning Europe into the world’s most competitive knowledgebased economy by 2010. It will also greatly contribute to the creation of the European Research Area (ERA), a true European internal market for research and knowledge, where EU and national R&D efforts are better integrated. To reach the necessary critical mass at EU level and to pool together both financial and intellectual resources, FP6 introduces new instruments, such as Networks of Excellence (NoEs) and Integrated Projects (IPs). In order to achieve this more effectively and, in turn, to contribute to both the creation of the European Research Area (ERA) and to innovation, FP6 is structured around three headings: - Focusing and integrating EU research (through specific and/or thematic research projects); - Structuring the European Research Area (through training, dissemination and mobility); - Strengthening the foundations of the European Research Area (by means of coordination, networking and policy support). See Chapter 2, and Section 2.1 in particular, for a detailed description and breakdown of these headings. The activities under these three headings will be instrumental in the integration of research efforts and actions on a European scale, as well as contributing to the structuring of the various dimensions of the European Research Area. 7 FP6: a radical shift in approach to EU research funding The Sixth Framework Programme (FP6), while representing a radical shift in approach to EU research funding, has also been designed to tie in with previous Framework Programmes (FPs). Its objective continues to be the development of a truly European scientific community equipped with the best skills and know-how, and to support scientific and technical work of the highest quality, conducted through transnational projects benefiting from mobile researchers. But the success of past programmes needs to be reinforced, in particular the networks and projects supported by the European Union. FP6 will distribute € 17.5 billion to the parties involved in European research and technological development (RTD), but its aims go far beyond mere cofinancing of research projects. This programme provides a coherent and ambitious pan-European framework for supporting RTD as part of EU research policy to strengthen scientific and technology bases and the competitiveness of European industry by means of a five-year strategic plan for the period 2002-2006. During this period, it will stimulate transnational collaboration in research, particularly between industry and universities, and in the establishment of networks of excellence. FP6 will also help to establish an environment in Europe that is conducive to successful innovation. This means encouraging technology transfer, ensuring the availability of venture capital, providing greater protection for intellectual property rights and developing human resources. Increased resources will also be devoted to encouraging SME participation in all the Framework Programme activities. FP6 represents the third largest operational budget line within the EU's overall budget, after the Common Agricultural Policy and the Structural Funds. This amounts to 3.9% of the EU’s overall 2001 budget (or 3.4% of 2002) and 5.4% of all 2001 public (non-military) research spending in Europe. Principles of FP7 When FP6 was barely under way, its successor was already looming on the horizon. The debate on FP7 started in September 2003 when the Competitiveness Council invited the Commission and the Member States to make more effective use of financing instruments, including the EU’s Structural Funds, for R&D. On 18 November 2003 the EP unanimously adopted a report written by German MEP Rolf Linkohr calling for the budget of FP7 to be raised to 30 billion euros for the entire 4-year period. The proposal on the Commission’s future budget between 2007 and 2013 (February 2004) claimed higher contributions from EU’s Member States for research and innovation initiatives at EU level. In this proposal the Commission highlights the following priorities for an enlarged EU: sustainable growth, citizenship, freedom, security and justice; all contributing towards strengthening the EU’s position as a global partner. Research and innovation fall within the first priority. At present, the stakeholders – governments, industry and universities – share the view that FP7 must contribute to a highly productive and competitive European knowledge society in which the aforementioned priorities can be addressed and resolved. It is commonly felt that the upcoming FP, more than its predecessors, must reflect a clear added value of European policy over national research efforts, that it must foster real excellence in research (both monodisciplinary and multidisciplinary) and that it should help create a Europe for researchers (fulfilment of the ERA promise). To this end, a varied portfolio of instruments should be created, one that reflects the stakeholders’ needs. The debate about the exact look and feel of thematic priorities and modalities has just begun, but will eventually lead to important political decisions during the term of the Dutch EU presidency, which spans the second half of 2004. To keep abreast of the FP7 debate, check out: http://www.cordis.lu/era/fp7.htm 1.4. FP6 priorities The priorities covered by FP6 are listed in the budget table (see Chapter 2). They include: life sciences, genomics and biotechnology for health; information society technologies; 8 nanotechnologies and nanosciences, ‘intelligent’ materials, new production processes and services; aeronautics and space; food quality and safety; sustainable development, global change and ecosystems; citizens and governance in a knowledge-based society; other promising research areas, including support for participation of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). FP6 also addresses research and innovation, human resources and mobility, research infrastructures, and science/society relationships. The Commission respects fundamental ethical principles in implementing these priorities. SMEs will be encouraged to participate in all areas of FP6, particularly in the context of the activities carried out in the priority thematic areas. The SME National Contact Points will be reinforced in order to provide appropriate information and assistance to potential SME participants (informing, awareness-raising, advising, assisting in partner search, training). SME associations or ‘groupings’ will be allowed to participate in the projects on behalf of their members. International participation in these activities will be assured and will be open to all countries having concluded association agreements with the EU to this effect, including associated states and candidate countries. Other ‘third’ countries (like Switzerland) may participate in FP6 through bilateral cooperation agreements. Researchers and organizations from third countries may also take part in projects on a case-by-case basis. The detailed conditions under which entities from third countries and international organizations involved in research activities may participate in FP6, including the financial arrangements, are specified in the regulation which will be adopted pursuant to Article 167 of the Treaty. Participation in the activities of FP6 will be encouraged through publication of the necessary information on content, conditions and procedures in a timely and thorough manner to potential participants, including those from the candidate and other associated countries. 1.5. New ERA for European research: combating fragmentation Europe has a long-standing tradition of excellence in research and innovation, and European teams continue to lead the way in many fields of science and technology. However, its centres of excellence are scattered across the Member States and all too often, their efforts fail to add up in the absence of adequate networking and cooperation. In the past, collaborative actions have been initiated at both European and EU level, but now is the time to bring Europe’s endeavours together, to end the fragmentation of research and to build a research and innovation structure equivalent to the ‘common’ market for goods and services. That structure is called the European Research Area (ERA). It constitutes the regrouping of all EU support for the better coordination of research activities and the convergence of research and innovation policies at national and EU levels. The ERA implements the European Union’s declared ambition of achieving a genuine common research policy. This includes the indispensable and longawaited integration of Member States’ scientific and technological capacities. 1.6. Sharing skills and results The basic idea underpinning the ERA is that the issues and challenges of the future cannot be met without much greater integration of Europe’s research efforts and capacities. The objective is to move into a new stage by introducing a coherent and concerted approach at EU level from which genuine joint strategies can be developed. Without this political will, Europe is condemned to increasing marginalization in a global world economy. With the ERA, on the other hand, Europe is giving itself the resources to fully exploit its exceptional potential, and thus to become – in the words of the Lisbon European Summit of March 2000 – ‘the world’s most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy’. With often substantial resources at their disposal, national research programmes are undertaken independently of one other, to a large extent. This dispersion effect is definitely a key factor in Europe’s present underperformance when compared with the world’s other research centres, and is preventing Europe from fully exploiting the EU’s human and material resources. The longer-term objective is therefore to achieve greater 9 cooperation between Member States’ research strategies and a mutual ‘opening up’ of national programmes. 1.7. Training for better performance Recognizing the importance of generating ‘new knowledge’ and ‘knowledge transfer’, several programmes in FP6 include training components to improve Europe’s overall research performance. To achieve this , the budget for training schemes in FP6 has been substantially increased. Trainingrelated activities and awards made a valuable contribution to European research in past Framework Programmes, especially by encouraging younger researches and scientist to take up and pursue careers in science and technology. 10 2. FP6 in a nutshell 2.1. Specific programmes or sections FP6 is divided into three specific programmes or ‘sections’*) that cover a wide range of topics, thus integrating research priorities at EU level and structuring and strengthening the foundations of the European Research Area. A graphical representation is shown below: Section 1: Focusing and integrating Community research Thematic priorities Budget (E million) 1.1.1. Life sciences, genomics and biotechnology for health 1.1.1.1. Advanced genomics and its applications for health 1.1.1.2. Combating major diseases 1.1.2. Information society technologies 1.1.3. Nanotechnologies and nanosciences, knowledge-based multifunctional materials and new production processes and devices 1.1.4. Aeronautics and space 1.1.5. Food quality and safety 1.1.6. Sustainable development, global change and ecosystems 1.1.6.1. Sustainable energy systems 1.1.6.2. Sustainable surface transport 1.1.6.3. Global change and ecosystems 2,255 mE 1,100 1,155 3,625 1,300 1,075 685 2,120 810 610 700 1.1.7. Citizens and governance in a knowledge-based society 225 1.2 1.2.1. 1.2.2. 1.2.3. 1.2.4. 555 215 430 Specific activities covering a wider field of research Research for policy support New and emerging science and technology (NEST) Specific SME activities Specific measures in support of international cooperation (INCOs) 315 Section 2: Structuring the European Research Area (ERA) 2.1. 2.2. 2.3. 2.4. Research and innovation Human resources and mobility Research infrastructures Science and society 290 1,580 655 80 Section 3: Strengthening the foundations of the ERA 3.1. 3.2. Coordination of research activities Development of research/innovation policies 11 270 50 *) The EURATOM thematic programme, which has a budget of #E 1,230 million, is not included here. All of the priority themes in Section 1 can be broken down according to strategic objectives. For example, as you can see above, ‘1.1.1. Life sciences, genomics and biotechnology for health’ is divided into ‘Advanced genomics and its health applications’ and ‘Combating major diseases’. These, too, can be broken down into subtopics, such as ‘Fundamental knowledge and basic tools for functional genomics in all organisms’ and ‘Application-oriented genomic approaches to medical technologies’. A summary of the most important topics can be found in Annex 1. 2.2. Sections and instruments Although a detailed description of all of the ‘operational’ or ‘financial’ instruments is given in Chapter 3, it is worth bearing in mind at this point that not all sections are linked to all of the instruments. A general impression is given below, together with the important acronyms: • Section 1 (Focusing and integrating) – covers all instruments: Networks of Excellence (NoEs), Integrated Projects (IPs), Specific Targeted Research and Innovation Projects (STREPs), Coordination Actions (CAs) and Specific Support Actions (SSAs); • Section 2 (Structuring) – only includes a limited set of instruments, e.g. Integrated Infrastructures Initiative (I3)*), and Specific Support Actions – ‘lump sum’ in the case of a training activity (fellowship); • Section 3 (Strengthening) – only includes a limited set of instruments, like Coordination Actions. *) Explanatory note: the accompanying documentation for certain thematic priorities mentions other instruments (e.g. the I3 instrument) in addition to the five main instruments. Since the use of these instruments is extremely limited and because we want to avoid confusion, we have decided not to include them in our overview. 2.3. Other possibilities outside the FP The FP is not the only source of RTD funding. The Directorates-General that assist the Commission are grouped around certain key themes, for instance ‘Economy and Society’, ‘International Affairs’ and ‘Institutional Affairs’. In the first group, the DGs ‘Agriculture’, ‘Environment’ and ‘Research, Development Technology and Innovation’ are considered to be among the most important. In the second group, the same applies to ‘External Assistance’. There are also a number of non-EU entities (international organizations and/or programmes) that cover a wide range of RTD ventures, some of which have links with the FP. Several (though by no means all) of these organizations or possibilities are listed below: ALβAN - European Union Programme of High Level Scholarships for Latin America a programme that covers courses for postgraduates (Master’s and Doctorate degrees) as well as higher training for Latin American professionals/future decision-makers in institutions or centres in the EU Calls are issued before the start of each academic year. More information: http://www.programalban.org ALFA - América Latina - Formación Académica is a programme of cooperation between institutions of higher education in the European Union and Latin America More information: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/europeaid/projects/alfa/index_en.htm AUNP - ASEAN European Union University Network Programme This network programme builds on the long-standing, high-level political dialogue between the EU and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and on a series of initiatives already undertaken by the EC to increase mutual understanding between the two target regions. The programme provides two different types of support: grant support and network initiatives. More information: http://europa.eu.int/comm/europeaid/projects/aunp/index_en.htm 12 COST – European Cooperation in the field of Scientific and Technological Research Founded in 1971, COST is an intergovernmental framework for European Cooperation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research, allowing the coordination of nationally funded research at European level. COST Actions cover basic and pre-competitive research as well as public utility activities. More information: http://cost.cordis.lu/src/home.cfm ESF - European Science Foundation The European Science Foundation promotes high quality science at a European level. It acts as a catalyst for the development of science by bringing together leading scientists and funding agencies to debate, plan and implement pan-European initiatives. More information: http://www.esf.org EUREKA Pan-European network for market-oriented, industrial R&D. EUREKA supports the competitiveness of European companies through international collaboration, by creating links and networks of innovation. More information: http://www.eureka.be HFSP - Human Frontier Science Programme The Human Frontier Science Programme (HFSP) supports basic research focusing on complex mechanisms of living organisms through Research Grants and (short and long-term) Fellowships. Considering the Community’s interest in the HFSP and the commonality of objectives with this theme, a contribution will be made available for 2003 and 2004 in the form of subsidies, to provide non-G8 Member States with the possibility to fully benefit from the programme. Subject to the Community’s continued interest, this contribution may be made available for the following two years of the Framework Programme. More information: http://www.hfsp.org INTAS - International Association for the promotion of cooperation with scientists from the New Independent States of the former Soviet Union (NIS) Within the current Activities Plan 2003-2006, the INTAS organization regularly issues calls for proposal for certain activities, like INTAS Young Scientist Fellowships, Research Projects and Research Networks. More information: http://www.intas.be JSPS - Japan Society for the Promotion of Science Postdoctoral positions in Japan lasting 12-24 months are continuously available in a variety of research fields. Successful applicants have the opportunity to conduct collaborative research activities at Japanese universities or research institutes. More information: http://www.jsps.go.jp/e-fellow/postdoctral.html LIFE - Financial Instrument for the Environment is one of the spearheads of the European Union's environmental policy. The current programme, LIFE III (2000-2004) co-finances large scale projects in three areas: LIFE Nature, LIFE-Environment and LIFE-Third Countries. More information: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/life/home.htm NATO - North Atlantic Treaty Association The NATO Science Programme offers support for international collaboration between scientists from countries of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC). Scientists from Mediterranean Dialogue countries are also eligible for support for collaborative activities. These goals are implemented by several instruments, such as basic, advanced and senior science fellowships. All information: http://www.nato.int/ NIH - National Institutes of Health, USA Various National Institutes of Health in the USA publish calls for proposals from foreign (e.g. European) researchers in biomedical disciplines, at different stages of their career. Due to the time-consuming US citizenship 13 procedures, it is paramount that researchers wishing to take part in an NIH fellowship scheme plan their participation well in advance. More information: http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/ Public Health - Community action programmes on public health The new programme is effective from 1 January 2003 and runs until 31 December 2008. It has three main areas of activity: improving health information, responding rapidly to health threats and tackling health determinants. Core issues are health promotion, health monitoring, communicable diseases, cancer and rare diseases. Calls for proposals are published annually and mostly close around mid-May. http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/health/index_en.html The External Assistance funding programmes can be found on the EUROPA website: http://europa.eu.int/comm/europeaid/index_en.htm For information on the Directorates-General within the European Commission, their scope and budgets: http://europa.eu.int/comm/index_en.htm 14 3. The FP6 instruments Compared to FP5, FP6 contains a wider range of better differentiated instruments to implement the priority themes within the specific programmes mentioned in Section 1. The following instruments are available, the first two of which are new to the field: • • • • • • Networks of Excellence (NoEs); Integrated projects (IPs); Article 169 (for the joint implementation of national programmes); Specific targeted research projects (STREPs); Coordination Actions (CAs); Specific Support Actions (SSAs). The principles that guided the Commission in their design were simplification and streamlining (e.g. minimizing the overheads of all parties concerned at all stages of the process, including those of the Commission itself), flexibility and adaptability (applicable throughout all of the priority themes), increased management autonomy and the need to preserve public accountability, thus increasing the interests of the European community. How all this will work out in the end for both researchers and managers involved, remains to be seen. We will now take a closer look at the instruments listed above. 3.1. Networks of Excellence (NoEs) The primary purpose of the Networks of Excellence (NoEs) is to address the problem of fragmentation in European research. They are concerned with the durable structuring and shaping of European research on a particular topic in order to strengthen excellence in that area. Furthermore, by investing money in a partnership of excellent teams, the networks can also be expected to generate new knowledge (but not as a primary goal). NoEs will be implemented through a Joint Programme of Activities (JPA), consisting of at least three components: 1. A programme of research activities, notably of long-term character. 2. A set of integrating activities, aimed at creating a strong and lasting integration among the participants in an NoE. These could involve the coordinated programming of the partners’ activities; the sharing of research facilities, tools and platforms; joint management of the partners’ knowledge portfolio; staff mobility and exchanges; and the reinforcement of electronic communication networks to support interactive working between teams. 3. A set of activities designed to spread excellence beyond the boundaries of the NoE partners. These could include innovation-related activities and communication campaigns for disseminating results and raising public awareness. 15 Volume NoE comprised in Programme of Activities In the figure, the vertical volume of integration activities binds the network together; that’s the part that will receive Community financing. The horizontal blocks represent the volume of activities which each party to the network (here there are five) brings in for integration. The essence is that every party is legally bound to bring into the network the whole volume as shown, even though only a small part of the financing of that volume is derived from Commission budgets. Source: UNITE website, Appendix 1 to the UNECA All the NoE’s exploits should be carried out within a coherent management framework. The scale of the critical mass will vary from topic to topic. The larger networks can be expected to involve many hundreds of researchers. A typical NoE should be made up of at least three participants from three different Member States or associated states but, as with IPs, the number is likely to be significantly higher: 20 partners are not uncommon. To ensure lasting integration, Community support could be needed for five years, and if justified, longer – but not more than seven years. The financial support from the EC will be in the form of a fixed ‘grant for integration’, which takes into account the expected degree of integration in the network. Each call for proposals contains a reference table converting the number of researchers into the annual average grant to be allocated. By way of illustration, an NoE with 200 researchers being supported over a five-year period would be eligible to receive a fixed amount of € 17.5 million (plus any supplementary bonuses for doctoral students, engaged in the network’s research activities). Because the contract contains a payment-by-result scheme, the Commission will develop a robust output monitoring format that consists of an annual independent review of an NoE’s progress and its plans for the next period (possibly mid-term), and an end-of-term review, taking stock of its achievements. 16 Measuring integration Several criteria will be used along the way to measure integration. For instance, there must be mutual specialization and mutual complementarity, as well as an increased sharing of common research infrastructures, equipment and platforms. The research projects undertaken should be executed jointly and partners should be encouraged to adopt interactive modes of working. All these criteria are laid down in the proper evaluation manuals (see also Chapter 6). Evolution of the Consortium In the project execution phase, it may be necessary to attract new partners. To that end, an NoE may publish a competitive call for partners – without additional funding (only according to the present contract). The Commission may do the same, but this time with additional funding. 3.2. Integrated projects (IPs) The main purpose of IPs is to support objective-driven research, where the primary deliverable is new knowledge. As they mobilize a critical mass of expertise, IPs should also have a structuring effect on the European research fabric. Each project must contain a research component (from basic to applied) and may contain technological development and demonstration components (as appropriate), as well as a training element. Most projects are expected to be multidisciplinary in nature. The participation of SMEs in IPs is strongly encouraged. The effective management of knowledge (which is also basically a task for every partner), and its dissemination and transfer, are also essential features of each IP, as well as the analysis and assessment of the technologies developed and of the factors relating to their exploitation. The value of the activities is expected to be somewhere in the range of €1525 million and probably more, but there is no minimum threshold. There must be a minimum of three participants from three different Member States or associated countries. In practice, however, there are likely to be substantially more participants. On average, just as with NoEs, there will probably be around 15 or 20 partners in a Consortium. IPs are expected to have a typical duration of between 3 and 5 years. Community support will take the form of a ‘grant to the budget’. The costs must be shown to be both necessary and ‘economic’, and be properly recorded in each of the participants’ accounts. Each participant must provide a simplified annual cost statement, together with a cost certificate by an independent auditor certifying the overall total costs incurred. A major simplification compared to the FP5 regime is the absence of predefined cost categories, although these do pop up in the guidance texts by way of reference (see for instance the Financial Guidelines). The contract will specify the maximum Community contribution, but not the distribution of the grant among the participants, enabling the Consortium to manage its own financial affairs – and eliminating the source of much of the micromanagement associated with FP5 contracts. The project will liaise with the Commission through a coordinator, and a simplified contract signature procedure will allow the contract to enter into force sooner. For both new instruments, a Consortium Agreement is mandatory. Mid-term evaluation FP6 In July 2004, Ramon Marimon, former Spanish Secretary of State and chairman of a high level expert panel charged with carrying out a mid-term evaluation of the new instruments introduced for FP6, presented his panel’s findings to the informal Competitiveness Council. The report contains a number of recommendations on the Integrated Projects and the Networks of Excellence, some of which may be implemented in FP6’s second term, and some which may be introduced in FP7. One of the recommendations is concerned with the misconception that projects that use the new instruments should be very large. Critical mass depends on the topic, the thematic area, the participants, the potential impact and the added value. The concept of ‘one size fits all’ should not be applied across all thematic areas and instruments. In a first reaction, the Commission seems to agree on this: Achilleas Mitsos, Director-General of the EC’s Research DG, stressed that the distinctive characteristic of each instrument is not its size, but its 17 scope. ‘Networks of Excellence, Integrated Projects and STREPs have different objectives. They have different raisons d’être. (…) To give an example, we must be able to have a STREP, that is bigger in size than an Integrated Project’ (CORDIS News, 5-7-2004). The panel found the costs and risks of participation in FP6 to be ‘unreasonably high’. For this reason, it proposes implementing a two-step evaluation procedure. This would involve potential participants first submitting a short proposal, which would be evaluated according to a limited set of criteria, including adequacy and excellence. The envisaged improvement in feedback on the proposal brought about by this change will allow potential participants to learn from experience, as well as providing guidance for contract negotiation where the successful proposals are concerned. The full report (29 pages) can be downloaded from CORDIS at ftp://ftp.cordis.lu/pub/fp6/docs/morimon_final_en.pdf In a communication and working document, the Commission responded to each individual recommendation, often underlining that it is aware of problems and has taken moves to tackle them. The paper also outlines correctives measures that are already under way or planned for the future. The communication from the Commission can be located at ftp://ftp.cordis.lu/pub/fp6/docs/acte_final270804_en.pdf 3.3. Article 169 Article 169 instruments have been around for quite some time, in fact since the Amsterdam Treaty was concluded in 1992. So far, however, they have remained unused within the context of a Framework Programme. The Article covers the EU’s participation in research programmes undertaken by several Member States. As the decision to initiate Article-169 research proposals lies with the Member States’ national programme committees, this article is expected to be used sparsely during FP6. A pilot Article-169 project is currently being run, in the form of the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCCTP), a joint venture to enable clinical trials for drugs and vaccines against HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. The EDCCTP issues its own calls for proposals. In the Netherlands, the NWO (Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research) is a key partner engaged in setting up an ‘Article 169’ network. Preparations are currently under way for an upcoming initiative on ocean drilling. 3.4. Specific Targeted Research (or Innovation) Projects (STREPs / STIPs) Specific Targeted Research Projects (STREPs) are one of the traditional instruments already available during FP5 in the guise of RTD projects and RTD and demonstration projects. STREPs can be used in specified cases in certain calls for proposal, involving several priority themes in the specific programmes. Generally speaking, they address a research and technological development theme or a demonstration project to prove the viability of new technologies offering potential economic advantages to the (EU) Community. When exploring, validating and disseminating new innovative concepts, we’re speaking of STIPs. As with IPs and NoEs, projects need at least 3 participants in 3 different Member States. The value of the activities may reach up to several million euros and the typical duration is 2 to 3 years. 3.5. Coordination Actions (CAs) Coordination Actions (CAs) were formerly known as ‘concerted actions’. They represented R&D collaboration at its purest level, bringing researchers together for meetings, and providing funding for travel and accommodation. They could also take the form of a thematic network. This modality will basically play the same role in FP6 and so, compared to the weightier new instruments, it represents a lighter touch in terms of facilitating research collaboration around Europe or the rest of the world. The INCO programme provides a prime example of an area in which the older instruments still play a key role: it consists entirely of STREPs, CAs and SSAs. 3.6. Specific Support Actions (SSAs) These are smaller instruments with a more modest financial scope and as such they are the successors to the ‘accompanying measures’ used in FP5. As their name suggests, they support certain thematic programme initiatives through dissemination meetings, workshops, round tables and conferences. The most prominent and well-known SSAs are the bursaries or Marie Curie Fellowships, which – because of their enormous potential for impact on research within the university – will be discussed in more detail in the next paragraph. 18 3.6.1. Marie Curie Fellowships The mobility of scientists is one of the most important pillars of FP6. Mobility programmes have ranked among the more successful activities of all the past FPs and have undergone frequent name changes: from ‘Science’ to ‘Human Capital and Mobility’, to ‘Training and Mobility of Researchers’ and (in its last incarnation in FP5) ‘Improving Human Potential’ (IHP). In the IHP programme, the fellowships were named after Marie Curie (1867-1934), the famous co-discoverer of radium as a high-energy applicant in surgery. The new Human Resources and Mobility (HRM) programme has retained the fellowship name, along with other aspects of the programme. It continues to take a ‘bottom up’ approach, in which it is possible to propose fundamental research projects outside the thematic priorities, but with an obvious focus on training. What has changed, however, is the scope of the mobility scheme. It is no longer limited to doctoral students or postdocs, but is open to applicants from ‘third’ countries as well. It aims to actively promote the return to Europe of European scientists working in a third country in an effort to counteract the brain drain. It also gives institutes the opportunity to apply for funds to host researchers from abroad. This also applies to individual scientists who wish to work in a lab or institute outside their country of residence. In general the HRM programme contains individual-driven and host-driven actions (fellowships, but also training courses and conferences), and actions for the promotion and recognition of excellence. (Recognition takes the form of grants for outstanding teams, Marie Curie chairs and excellence awards, none of which will be discussed further here. More information about these possibilities can be obtained at the VU Liaison Office). The most important fellowships are: Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowships (MC-EIF) These fellowships are open to researchers of all ages from the EU and associated states with at least 4 years’ professional experience or a doctorate degree. The main purpose is to give them the financial means to undergo advanced training through research or to acquire complementary skills in a European organization or company that suits their professional needs. These hosts must be willing to take on fellows for a 1 or 2-year stay. Marie Curie Outgoing International Fellowships (MC-OIF) These fellowships enable researchers from the EU and associated states to broaden their international experience by working in research centres outside the EU or associated states up to a period of 2 years, with a reintegration phase of up to 1 year in the home institution. Marie Curie Incoming International Fellowships (MC-IIF) Incoming international fellowships target experienced researchers from outside the EU or associated states who would like to come to Europe and take part in some form of research training. Marie Curie Research Training Networks (MC-RTN) Other measures are also available to improve Europe’s mobility attractiveness and research performance. The Marie Curie Research Training Networks provide training and research experience for researchers of any age or nationality by giving them the opportunity to spend between 3 months and 3 years in another country as part of an international highquality research project. The networks contribute to the transfer of knowledge through the promotion of multidisciplinary research. They also support the interaction and exchange of all research staff working on the project. Marie Curie Fellowships for Early Stage Training (MC-EST) In MC-EST, funding is available for universities, research institutes and businesses in the EU or associated states to provide early-stage researchers of any nationality or age with structured scientific or technological training opportunities of between 3 months and 3 years. To apply for funding, institutes must submit a proposal to the European Commission. The Commission then selects the successful proposals and eventually signs a contract with the institute. The successful institute is then free to select the 19 fellows directly. Researchers will be required to move to the country where their host institute is based. Mobstacles In FP6, the share of funds available for human resources and mobility has increased by no less than 50% to € 1.58 billion. A truly astounding figure. Behind this success story, however, lies the less encouraging truth about the employment issues that surround an appointment as a Marie Curie fellow: legal regulations regarding immigration, permits, labour relations, taxes and so the list goes on. In the Dutch context, the tax department (Belastingdienst) issued a policy document in May 2002, stating that the fellows’ salaries are subject to income tax, since fellows are regarded as employees according to income tax laws, not as bursary holders. At our university, fellows are also seen as employees in the above sense (which means that, although they do not build up pension in the ABP pension scheme, they are insured under the Dutch Sickness Benefits Act (Ziektewet) and Invalidity Insurance Act (Wet op de Arbeidsongeschiktheidsverzekering). More information about this can be obtained at the Finance and Personnel Department (Dienst Financiën en Personeel, see the Dutch text on the VU website http://www.vu.nl/ > Medewerkers > Werk > Regelingen personeel). From 2002 on, a new problem could arise in the form of insufficient reference rates for certain categories of researchers. The figures quoted in the HRM work programme are based on a European survey of salaries executed in 2002 in the context of the Mobility Strategy, without prior consent from the Dutch Ministry of Education. The gross salaries have now been renegotiated and ‘topped up’ to a reasonable level. Another round of negotiations is expected in the near future. The Dutch Liaison Offices (united in the NDLO) are fully aware of this problem; they can supply all additional information about this issue (contact the VU EU Liaison Office about this). In February 2003, the Commission issued the first Implementation Report (a working paper) entitled A Mobility Strategy for the ERA. In this document, the Commission set out its strategy to improve the environment for mobility, in the form of a set of concrete instruments. In June 2004, EU Research Commissioner Philippe Busquin launched the European Network of Mobility Centres (ERA-MORE) in Paris. This network aims to offer a first point of contact for researchers undertaking a mobility experience within the EU. Researchers will receive help with a variety of issues, such as visas, work permits, child care and language courses. The services are free at the point of delivery. More information available at: http://europa.eu.int/eracareers/index_en.cfm?|1=4 A valuable source of additional information is provided by the website of the Marie Curie Fellowship Association (MCFA). Past Marie Curie fellows / MCFA members have written down their experiences of working abroad in a wide range of EU countries. In their case histories, they focus upon local administrative issues, social security, taxation, contractual problems, accommodation and useful links and addresses. The MCFA Welcome Packs can be found at: http://www.mariecurie.org/src/assoc/loc_grp/welcome_p.htm Note: The Improving Human Potential website (the HRM programme’s name during FP5) still publishes vacancies on the Internet for postdocs in research training networks (RTN) at numerous host institutes all over the EU. More information at: http://www.cordis.lu/improving/code/vacancies.htm References Background information about the FP6 instruments can be found at: http://www.cordis.lu/fp6/instruments.htm For information on the Marie Curie actions go to: 20 http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6/mariecurie-actions/home_en.html The Commission’s Research Mobility Portal can be found at: http://europa.eu.int/eracareers/index_en.cfm 21 22 4. The Rules for Participation The Rules for Participation are part of the FP legal framework, which means they are subject to co-decision by the key players in the EU: the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament. The rules govern the practical implementation of all EU research activities under the FP and as such, they set out provisions in relation to issues such as the country and number of participating organizations, the type of financial instruments used, the permitted funding modalities, evaluation principles, contract regulations and dissemination of research results. The importance of the fact that the Rules aren’t guidelines but represent European legislation (in other words, they concern law) makes them worth examining in greater depth. 4.1. Participants Participants have to be legal entities in Member States, associated candidate countries, ‘third’ countries, Joint Research Centres or international European interest organizations (e.g. European Economic Interest Groupings or other entities whose composition meets the requirements). Legal entities from ‘third’ countries and international organizations – for example European scientific cooperation organizations – may participate with EU funding in certain cases, such as the Specific Programme 1 (the ‘integrating’ section) and the INCO programme. For INCO countries, there is a budgetary limit to participation (as stated in the work programme). For all other states, participation including funding may be available when they are vital to the realization of the project, as foreseen in the work programme and in the call. A new element in FP6 is the opportunity given to Consortia to make changes in partnerships. For NoEs and IPs, Consortia can also issue calls for proposals themselves along the way, but always in strict accordance with the rules. Which countries can participate in FP6 without restriction (i.e. with funding)? EU Member States Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom Candidate Countries Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania, Turkey Associated Countries Iceland, Israel, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland Russia, the New Independent States, Mediterranean Countries, Western Balkans and developing countries are subject to restrictions on participation and funding. For third countries with a cooperation agreement with the EU, like Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, India, Japan, Kazakhstan, South Africa, Ukraine, USA (list Sept. 2002) funding has to be foreseen in the relevant work programmes and in the call. The EUROPA international scientific cooperation policy web pages contain an up-to-date overview of all countries, together with the current status of their agreements with the EU: http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/iscp/index_en.cfm?page=Countries 4.2. Instruments All the instruments (except SSAs, like HRM ‘mobility’ actions) need at least 3 independent entities from 3 different Member States or associated states (or 2 Member States and 1 associated state) to constitute a project. In practice, however, NoEs and IPs will be considerably larger, as noted above (8 to 10 participants or more in some cases). The rule of thumb ‘3 entities from 3 Member States’ finds its legal basis in the Rules for Participation. The instruments are discussed in chapter 3. 23 4.3. Contractual provisions Like the instruments, the contractual provisions have also been drastically simplified for FP6. For one thing, there has been a significant reduction in the number of contract types compared to FP5. The contracts that remain have been incorporated into a collective approach, resulting in a skeleton structure that can be adapted to fit the necessary project types according to the instruments chosen. The contract always consists of a core section, containing a standard text that is completed with project data, and 6 annexes, the first three of which are the most important. Annex I contains the project description. Annex II sets out the General Conditions, including the necessary definitions and the rules concerning the parties’ obligations, consortium evolution, financial aspects (incl. reporting), intellectual property rights and access rights. Annex III names the conditions specific to the instrument in question, if applicable. This far-reaching simplification gives the participants and the Commission greater flexibility and autonomy *). A new development in this regard is the entering into force of the contract as soon as it has been signed by the coordinator and the Commission. From now on, it is the coordinator’s responsibility to acquire the other signatures as soon as possible after this initial signing, but preferably in close contact with his partners. This allows advance payments to be made to other contractors. Furthermore, the project starts on the starting date stated in the contract. The collective responsibility of the participants is twofold, and is of a technical and a financial nature. *) Note: for the Marie Curie actions, the Model Contract core text and the Annexes have been slightly altered to suit mono and multi contractor situations. There are contract text files for each of the Marie Curie action types (EIF, EST, IIF, OIF, RTN, SCF/LCF, TOK etc.). See http://www.cordis.lu/fp6/find-doc.htm Consortium Agreements In most cases, and in any event with IPs and NoEs, the contract states that the signatories are deemed to have concluded a Consortium Agreement, which can be defined as the model contract’s ‘other half’. This agreement regulates the internal operation and management of the Consortium, including project management, financial management, any intellectual property rights provisions and handling of pre-existing knowledge. It also covers issues pertaining to the project’s governance, such as voting rights and the relations between the Board of Directors and the other committees. There are several kinds of templates for Consortium Agreements, taking different approaches. These can be found on the websites of the European Association of Research and Technology Organizations (EARTO) and the Universities International Team of Experts (UNITE). UNITE consists of European university negotiators, invited by the European Commission to advise in their capacity as experts and members of what formerly was IRDAC/ESTA, a prominent advisory body which prepared policy on the modalities of European framework programmes for R&D. UNITE’s most important deliverable for FP5 was the text of the Unified Consortium Agreement (UCA). For FP6, a number of Consortium Agreement formats have been prepared: - UNITE and EARTO have joined efforts to produce their ‘own’ Integrated Projects Consortium Agreement (EARTO_UNITE-IPCA). This CA includes IPR clauses which are the most realistic and balanced for FP6, following the CEC Rules; - Industry and Academia have defined a ‘standard’ Consortium Agreement for FP6 Integrated Projects, with the EICTA-IPCA as result. From the university’s perspective, this format does not deal comprehensively enough with IPR-related issues; - Another Consortium Agreement for FP6 Integrated Projects has been prepared by the French ANRT. This approach is more or less diametric to the IPCA, but could serve in special academic circumstances; - Helmholtz Gemeinschaft, KoWi and Fraunhofer Gesellschaft (in close cooperation with other German organizations and with members of UNITE and EARTO) have devised a third Integrated Projects model; - Lastly, a group of organizations (EARMA, EARTO, ANRT, UNITE) has succeeded in producing a unified agreement for FP6 Networks of Excellence, the UNECA. 24 All of these models, together with a wealth of valuable contextual information, can be found and downloaded at http://www.unite.be Although these formats have been extensively screened on legal issues, it is stressed that the potential users always seek their legal counsel’s advice to be sure that all their interests are covered and their rights are protected. It is the coordinator’s responsibility to issue periodic progress reports on the stage a project has reached, and also about its financial situation. The Commission will perform scientific, technological and financial audits in the course of the project, but there will be standard annual monitoring with help from external experts, particularly in the case of IPs and NoEs. Should financial irregularities be revealed, sanctions like exclusion from further contract execution (and subsequent reimbursement of all Commission payments) can be imposed upon the Consortium. 4.4. Financial provisions: cost models According to Annex III of the FP6 Decision and Art. 14, 1 and 2 of the Rules of Participation, the EC financial contribution takes the form of grants for integration (NoEs), grants to the budget (IPs) and lump sums (scholarships, prizes, training actions such as MC fellowships). The three cost models are: - FC: a full-cost model in which all actual direct and actual indirect costs may be charged to the contract; - FCF: a simplified variant of the full-cost model, in which all actual direct costs may be charged to the contract, together with a flat-rate of 20% of all these direct costs, excluding subcontracts, which will be deemed to cover all related indirect costs; - AC: an additional cost model, covering all direct costs except for the participant’s recurring costs (although recurring costs relating to consortium management are eligible), together with a flat-rate of 20% of all these direct costs, excluding subcontracts, which will be deemed to cover all related non-recurring indirect costs. From a legal perspective, the participant has to make a choice between these different costing regimes. However, in practice the participant’s choices are extremely limited. The FC model is open to all participants except international organizations, physical persons and those public bodies obliged to use the AC model. The FCF model is foremost available to SMEs. The AC model is the most used model for entities like public non-profit organizations, higher education institutes and universities (including academic hospitals), which finance their research out of public (or governmental) sources, and can therefore obtain a reimbursement of all the supplementary (or additional) costs up to 100% from the Commission. For the correct background to this principle, see Title VI Chapter 2, Article 109 of Regulation 1605/2002 (June): “The award of grants shall be subject to the principles of transparency and equal treatment. They may not be cumulative or awarded retrospectively and they must involve co-financing. [...] The grant may not finance the entire costs of the action [...].” Depending on the type of grant, the EU financing covers certain percentages with regard to these models and the project type. The categories are given in the table below. Type of activity1 RTD activities (IP/STREP) Demonstration activities (IP) Innovation-related activities Training activities Consortium management activities Maximum grant as % of full cost (for participants applying the FC or FCF model) 50% 35% 50% 100% 100% (up to a maximum percentage of 7% of Community contribution) 1 Maximum grant as % of additional cost (for participants applying the AC model) Up to 100% Up to 100% Up to 100% Up to 100% Up to 100% (up to a maximum percentage of 7% of Community contribution) It should be noted that for NoEs the grant for integration is calculated on a different basis (see Chapter 3). For Marie Curie actions, fixed amounts are used (‘lump sum’). 25 Cost categories Earlier we stated that pre-defined cost categories would no longer be used in FP6. The general rule is that costs must be actual, economic and necessary to the project and be incurred during the project’s lifetime. They must also be recorded in the contractors’ accounts, but this may be done according to the participants’ own accounting principles. Costs cannot include indirect taxes, duties, interests and bad debts, or costs that have already been reimbursed in relation to another EU project. However, the well-known cost categories personnel, travel and subsistence, durable equipment, subcontracting costs and overheads are discussed in reference material like for instance the FP6 Financial Guidelines, as wellknown examples of eligible costs. This is worth noting, as the Financial Statements only mention ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ costs! FAQs on financial issues In 2003 and 2004, the Network of Dutch Liaison Officers (NDLO), of which the VU Liaison Office is a member, organized various seminars to keep researchers, faculty managers and administrators abreast of possible solutions to FP6 financial and contractual problems. It is common knowledge that the principles of FP6 financials can be interpreted in many different ways, thus creating a lot of confusion. Questions that led to a lively discussion included: Is it possible to choose between two cost models within one institution? • What are the VAT provisions for FP6 grants? • How can we prepare for audits during the project? • Do we have to keep accounts of all costs in the AC system? • Can management costs be charged to the contract? • Can the costs of permanent staff be reimbursed under the AC regime? • How do we deal with the financials in the Consortium Agreement? • Of course, the answers discussed are largely dependent on the context; still, a few answers that have already been given may also apply in other specific cases. A standard list of the most FAQs is available at the Liaison Office. 4.5. Intellectual property rights (IPR) Intellectual property rights (IPR) mostly concern the rules for dissemination and use, access rights, dealing with pre-existing knowledge and so on. In Part B of the project proposal, the Consortium is already required to shed some light on the implementation plan for the first 18 months of the project, in which issues pertaining to intellectual property rights may arise. These rights are dealt with exclusively in Chapter 9. References Regulation (EC) No. 2321/2002 [...] of 16 December 2002 concerning the Rules for the Participation of undertakings, research centres and universities in [...] the implementation of the European Community Sixth Framework Programme (2002-2006) Accessible through http://www.cordis.lu/fp6/find-doc.htm#rp Guide to financial issues relating to indirect actions of the Sixth Framework Programmes (draft for discussion purposes, updated regularly) Downloadable at http://www.cordis.lu/fp6/find-doc.htm#other 26 5. How to write a competitive proposal in FP6 Researchers who wish to participate in FP6 cannot do so without thorough preparation. However true this may have been for the previous framework programmes, it is paramount for FP6, especially for the new instruments NoE and IP because of their magnitude and their hold on the infrastructure of the research institute. But even the ‘old’ instruments Coordination Actions and Specific Support Actions, require scientific and technological excellence, while Marie Curie host institutes also have to live up to very high standards. If you feel you know these golden rules by heart, you are, of course, free to skip this chapter. Nevertheless, the following practical tips may come in handy. Start early Timely study of all the relevant reference documents will prove invaluable. These include the text of the call for proposals, the work programme of the specific programme you wish to address, the guiding documents (Guide for Proposers, Guide for Evaluators) and the policy documents (White Papers, Commission legislation papers, forum discussion documents, all kinds of factsheets). The VU Liaison Office can play an important role during this phase. As the primary support desk for RTD and other programmes outside FP6, it provides an early warning service for all faculties. Of course, there are other sources and you may have to use more of these. The VU Liaison Office is a small operation with an extremely limited number of staff and is therefore only capable of playing a general role in this respect. The national SENTER/EG Liaison Office, however, is a specialized office with advisors on each RTD priority topic, and it is also able to deal with scientific, management and legal aspects. It is more than capable of handling any questions you may have concerning FP6. As faithful followers of FP6 may have noticed, the draft texts of work programmes and the minutes of Commission services’ sessions affecting decision-making are often made available through liaison-group networks, of which the VU Liaison Office is a member. Your own connections in your field of work can serve as another useful source of information. Make good use of all these networks! You can start by making an appointment with us (see Chapter 10) and we’ll see what we can do for you. Watch your WP Due to intermediate project results and concurrent policy changes, Work Programmes change constantly. Keep a close watch on updated versions of WPs, which are often written as a complement to earlier documents. This differs per thematic priority! A concise table with an overview of all relevant documents per TP (including call texts and their annexes, and Commission decisions) with download possibilities can be found at: http://www.cordis.lu/fp6/sp1_wp.htm http://www.cordis.lu/fp6/sp2_wp.htm Don’t try to force a square peg into a round hole One of the fundamental principles of framework programmes is ‘matching’: trying to fit the research subject into a specific programme topic or a set of topics (Note: ‘matching’ can also mean putting pieces of the financial puzzle together.) Our advice here, derived from extensive experience, is: it’s better to work the other way round. See if there are possibilities in the current or upcoming work programmes that might be of interest to you. Remember, it is the European Commission that is launching a tender to acquire the necessary expertise in the Community to help solve an economic, social, technological or scientific problem, and it’s the Commission that sets the standards (within reasonable parameters), not the research community (at least, not in most ‘top down’ programmes). So, as a very experienced colleague liaison officer of ours (see reference) always stresses: never go to Brussels to only look for money for your research! It is important to realize that if you find the relevant paragraph in a work programme, but encounter some other criteria which cannot be easily met (e.g. your proposal seems only to apply to the state of the art in your research discipline and not to provide clear added value to the Community, or you find yourself reluctant to take on managerial issues or innovation 27 aspects) then this basically means that you are not really prepared to live up to the Commission’s expectations. It may sound a bit patronizing, but all this should be a reason to strap yourself a bit more firmly into the seats at the EU documents library. Simply paying lip service to the terms of the proposal is not a viable option. Indeed, it might even turn into a breach of contract. Or you might want to try in another round of calls in FP6, or wait until FP7. Find the right partners (or coordinator) A good partner is someone you can trust blindly and completely. This isn’t only true of personal relationships, but all the more in Consortia co-funded by European Community budgets. With the advent of important new instruments, it has become increasingly imperative that partners combine their resources to provide added value on an RTD issue because of the complementary skills that are needed to carry out the work successfully. There is a strong chance that you will be a partner in one of the big Consortia IPs or NoEs, so it’s in your best interests to hook up with a coordinator who understands all the procedures and policy debates and who is privy to a great deal of inside ‘Brussels’ information on the framework programmes and instruments. Of course, it goes without saying that, when you see fit to embark on an NoE, you, your other partners and your coordinator should all excel in the field, all share a desire to end the fragmentation of ‘your’ scientific discipline and all understand that the Community money you are about to receive is to be used solely to carry out a joint programme of activities (which covers a smaller portion of the research agenda you are following). And you, as a partner, must be absolutely sure that your coordinator has no tricks up his sleeve and is not aiming to score at your expense. All this really is of the utmost importance! At this moment (at the start of 2004), it is still not easy to make a reliable forecast about the management of the big projects that will rarely be executed with less than the minimum eligible partner count: eight or ten. But no doubt it will take up a lot of the project manager’s time to see to all the necessary tasks, to keep all communication channels open and to perform adequate proposal engineering. The Dutch Liaison Officers’ network and the SENTER/EG Liaison agency, can offer help in drawing up partner profiles. Contact the VU Liaison Office about this special service. A basic link is offered at http://www.senter.nl/asp/page.asp?id=i001206&alias=egl Read other applications As a potential coordinator, you need to understand how others with proven excellence (or benefits) in the field have done their work. Try to get hold of as many applications as you can. There is no better way of studying the ‘tone of voice’ of a proposal before sitting down to compile your own project concept. The same goes of course for partners that have to provide their part of the project text. How does all this work? Let’s take a brief look at the first part of the liaison process. Either the VU Liaison Office has traced a possible ‘match’ between your expertise and the EU-RTD problem, or you have found out about it yourself (mostly thanks to a tip-off from one of your colleagues). You are then free to explore the preliminary process that can lead to the eventual submission of a proposal. There is absolutely no need to obtain certain signatures from the university authorities (at least, not at this stage – see later about the communication within the faculty or institute). Faculties at the VU and the VUmc have legislative and administrative powers to engage in contract preparation and execution by themselves. They have been mandated to do so – up to a certain level – by the VU Executive Board (College van Bestuur) or, in case of the VU University Medical Center (VUmc), the Governing Board (Raad van Bestuur). But experience of former FPs has taught that there are many advantages to accumulating expertise at central university level. It is time-consuming enough for researchers to keep up with developments in their own scientific fields, without having to look up all the specific details needed to help turn a scientific abstract or project description into an RTD proposal that will stand out in an EU crowd. And that’s exactly where the Liaison Offices come in. It is wise to forward a project idea to the ‘national’ SENTER/EG Liaison bureau, 28 where project advisors specialized in all the ins and outs of the thematic priorities often act as National Contact Points for the EU’s research priorities. The VU Liaison Office provides its clients with more general feedback and services, for instance checking if the proposal is compliant with relevant EU policy information or subjecting a handout containing some rough project ideas to a first read-through. The next step for the client who is aiming to be a coordinator and who is seeking the VU Liaison Office’s expert advice, is to compose a first draft of the proposal, taking the following criteria into account: - title, acronym - the relevant part of the specific programme(s) it addresses - the instrument to be used - a short summary, preferably no longer than five A4 - a statement of the main objectives - a brief description of the state of the art and the contribution of the proposed project to the state of the art - an account of the EU dimension of the problem and the project’s contribution to solving the problem - description of the composition of the Consortium (who is the coordinator? who are the partners and why were they chosen?) - forecast of outcome/foreseen results - usefulness of possible exploitation - estimate of the time span in relation to the requested budget, as well as the amount of funding requested from the EU. It is advisable to write as concisely as possible; the recommended number of pages is 5. The Liaison Office will pass comment on the draft, and a second (or third) opinion may be available from Brussels desk offices. In the meantime, the VU Liaison Office will have gone through the regular channels to deliver the necessary documents so that you can start composing the real thing (see the first paragraph of this chapter). It may be a good idea to participate in network meetings at which the future partners collaborate by focusing on the task that lies ahead. The Dutch European Community Liaison agency (EGL) organizes all kinds of information, dissemination and brokerage events to assist in aligning EURTD processes. Keep a lookout for these by reading R&D in Europa (a monthly publication) or by regularly checking the EGL web pages (http://www.senter.nl/). In addition, there are all kinds of organizations that provide potentially valuable training courses on aspects of FPs: - Hyperion Ltd. (Ireland), in collaboration with the European Association of Research Managers and Administrators (EARMA) regularly organizes courses on writing a competitive proposal and negotiating and administering an FP contract. Over the last few years, the VU has been a frequent co-organizer of the Hyperion courses. Hyperion also issues handbooks and brochures on different aspects of the Framework Programmes. For a full overview, see http://www.hyperion.ie; - EARMA itself (in cooperation with the Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe) offers a series of training courses in research management each year, including FP6 topics, see http://www.earma.org - opportunities for training offered by SENTER/EG Liaison can be found at the above-mentioned URL; - PQ Consulting, a small consultancy firm in the Higher Education sector, regularly holds preparatory FP6 workshops in London or Newcastle in collaboration with Bluebell Research Ltd. The URL is http://www.bluebellres.co.uk/index.htm; - another UK firm, Singleimage Co., advises and assists companies, universities, research organizations and administrative bodies who wish to participate in the European Union's research programmes, especially the IST priority. More info at http://www.singleimage.co.uk - the Network of Dutch University Liaison Officers has recently offered to share the expertise of UNITE negotiators with clients from the universities that participate in the network. To date, three informative meetings have taken place, in June and August 2003 and in March 2004, dealing with the day-to-day financial practice involved in executing an FP6 project. More 29 workshops of this kind (‘FP6 clinics’) are expected to follow, during which case studies will be presented. All of these preparations eventually culminate in a fully fledged proposal, which is then sent to the European Commission. Whether the story ends here or continues to the next phase, depends on a favourable evaluation (see the next chapter). Keep the management informed! Unlike FP5, the procedural simplifications for FP6 mean that the countersigning of application forms by the director of operations (‘directeur bedrijfsvoering’) at a faculty or institute only takes place at a later stage. However, regardless of the type of engagement (partner, coordinator) and the type of FP6 RTD proposal, applying for participation is a time-consuming business which also impacts on the department’s infrastructure if the proposal is selected for funding. In cases where a department becomes a leading light in several project proposals, the impact is even greater. With this in mind, it is important to keep the management at the VU (or at your faculty) informed about what is about to happen, even though there may be no legal necessity to do so as yet, and even if the proposal never gets past the initial phase. Make sure you talk to your director of operations (or at the VUmc: your cluster manager) about the possibility of he or she being asked to sign the forms at some point in the future. Always supply him or her with copies of any proposals once they have been submitted. Also make sure that your research policy officer (‘beleidsmedewerker onderzoek’) knows about your EU ventures. Clear communication on such matters will be greatly appreciated. References - R&D in Europa, a monthly publication (in Dutch) from SENTER/EG Liaison, about Dutch research and technological development (free subscription available at the SENTER/EG Liaison Office, PO Box 30732, 2500 GS The Hague) - Research Europe, a bimonthly publication about all aspects of European RTD (subscription rate: € 695 a year for 22 issues, at [email protected]) - Research Europe Online: free trial available at [email protected] or www.ResearchResearch.com - CORDIS, the Community’s R&D server at http://www.cordis.lu/ - the CORDIS FP6 glossary, for all background information on RTD topics: http://fp6.cordis.lu/fp6/glossary.cfm How to Write a Competitive Proposal for Framework 6. A Research Manager’s Handbook. By Sean McCarthy, Hyperion Ltd, Watergrasshill, CoCork, Ireland, 2003. How to Negotiate, Manage, Administer and Finish Framework 5 and Framework 6 Contracts. By Sean McCarthy, Hyperion Ltd, Watergrasshill, CoCork, Ireland, June 2004. More information about these publications and the Hyperion portfolio at http://www.hyperion.ie 30 6. The proposal submission and evaluation process 6.1. Proposal submission The submission process starts off with the call for proposals, provided for in the work programme (the ‘call fiche’) and published in the Official Journal of the European Union (C series): calls may encompass a single or a two-stage submission and evaluation procedure. A call for proposals may be preceded by an invitation to submit Expressions of Interest. This is the Commission’s way of consulting the research community on the viability of ideas about certain well-described RTD topics. Thousands of researchers are already familiar with this procedure because they were engaged in the Expressions of Interest exercise to help the Commission focus upon the research priorities of FP6, from March until June 2002. Compared to FP5, the proposal submission stage has become much more transparent. To begin with, the administrative forms for the proposal have been simplified. Proposers now only have to fill in three ‘A’-forms instead of eight. • Form A1 contains general information about the proposal: title, abstract (up to 1500 words) and keywords; • Form A2 gives all the necessary data on the coordinator and the partners (only 1 sheet per partner): organization name, address, legal status, activity type (R&D, innovation, demonstration, training, management) and telephone/fax/e-mail numbers and addresses; • Form A3 is the cost breakdown by type of activity and per partner. The work and Consortium description, which used to be known as Parts B and C in FP5, are combined and the anonymity requirement for what used to be Part C no longer applies (there is one exception, in the INCO thematic priority). Part B Part B contains all the necessary technical information about the proposal. The Guide for Proposers (available on CORDIS) gives a general outline of the headers that have to be used, and the recommended length in pages. Although the outline differs per programme and per instrument, a general structure is the following: - Front page (full title, acronym, date of preparation, type of instrument) - Contents page - Proposal summary page (full title, acronym, objectives addressed, proposal abstract) - Scientific and technological objectives of the project/state of the art - Relevance to the objectives of the programme - Potential impact - Workplan (work planning, graphical presentation, work package list and contents) - Deliverables list - Project management Mostly some preformatted forms follow in the Guide, like a ‘Project Effort Form’, ‘Work package list’ and ‘Work package description’ forms. Lastly, the ‘Ethical rules annex’ has to be filled in, as well as ‘Integrating the gender dimension annex’ The proposer can choose between four means of submission: - preparation offline, submission online; - preparation online, submission online; - preparation offline, submission on CD or diskette (with a paper backup); - preparation offline, submission on paper (only one copy required). Electronic submission only! For some calls – for instance: Marie Curie - , proposals for RTD actions are ‘invited’ to be submitted only as an electronic proposal. However, a coordinator may request permission from the Commission to submit on paper in advance of a deadline. If this is the case, it is mentioned explicitly in the ‘core’ call text (i.e. before the Annex). 31 Pre-registration and pre-proposal check Proposers are encouraged to pre-register their proposals electronically – preferably weeks before the deadline! - through CORDIS (http://www.cordis.lu/fp6/pre_registration.htm). The form is to be filled in only once by the proposal coordinator – it is essential that he has all of the details concerning the proposal (e.g. proposal details, call identifier, instrument, activity codes, participant details, etc.) at hand in order to complete the form. Some – but not all! - programmes offer pre-proposal checks. To this end, the Commission services supply coordinators with a standardized checklist, to help them assess whether their proposal appears to be within the scope of the call. This list is then sent to the relevant Directorate-General for examination. The submission of a pre-proposal, however, is not obligatory and the feedback provided by Commission staff does not commit the Commission to select the proposal. Nor does it oblige the proposer to submit or withdraw the proposal. New electronic submission system The successor to the FP5 PROTOOL instrument is called EPSS (Electronic Proposal Submission System). The system, basically an IT infrastructure in itself, is composed of the following components: - the Electronic Proposal Tool (EPT), an application that enables the offline preparation and submission of electronic proposals. Proposal coordinators use EPT for preparation purposes, to edit forms and to submit the proposal, while proposal partners use EPT to edit forms; - the Evaluation Service Provider (ESP), designed to assist the people engaged in the evaluation and selection of project proposals, by hosting a proposal/results database; - EXSIS: EXperts Sub-Information System, with an experts database; - the Proposal Management System/Contract Generation and Project Management Tool (PMS/CGPM), which will store all documentation about proposal ranking and the reports that are used by the Commission in deciding whether to reject or fund proposals, as well as the model contracts and project management formats. This subsystem can also be used for the contract deliverables during the project execution phase. EPSS is accessible on the Internet (CORDIS, https://www.epssfp6.org/epss/welcome.jsp), and can also be used offline as a download instrument. One of the most important modifications compared to PROTOOL is the standardizing of text formats. Since text files processed in Word are highly susceptible to computer viruses, the EPSS tool is equipped to make up the texts in RTF and PDF, which are relatively free of virus contamination. Minimum installation requirements are Pentium II 166 MHz or faster (350 MHz is recommended), and Windows 98/NT/2000/XP, Linux 2.4.x or any other Java compatible platform. Adobe Acrobat is needed in order to view and print the PDFs generated. Free software can be downloaded at http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readermain.html Deadline for reception To be eligible, proposals MUST be received by the Commission services before or on the deadline at the address that is given in the call. Once a proposal has been received and registered by the Commission, an Acknowledgement of receipt will be either returned electronically in case of electronic submission, or sent to the co-ordinator in case of paper submission (CD-rom/diskette). 6.2. Proposal evaluation The evaluation is governed by a number of well-established principles: proposals must have highly developed scientific, technical and managerial qualities, the decision-making process with regard to evaluation and funding must be transparent and be available to any interested party, proposals must be treated equally and impartially and the whole process must be handled efficiently and quickly. Immediately after the project proposal has reached its destination (electronically or by regular post), the packages are opened for the purpose of registering the administrative details and to permit acknowledgement of receipt. The file contents of electronically prepared proposals are entered into the Commission’s database. Next, all proposals are archived under 32 secure conditions. The following information is also noted as part of these standard eligibility checks: - date and time of receipt of the proposal on or before the deadline; - the required minimum number of eligible, independent partners in the Consortium (as set out in the work programme and the call text); - the completeness of the proposal (are all the necessary administrative forms present?); - other requirements stated in the call text. The acknowledgement of receipt is sent to the prime proposer by e-mail, fax, or post. This contains the proposal title, acronym and unique proposal identifier (proposal number), the name of the programme, the thematic priority and – if relevant – the call identifier to which the proposal is addressed and, lastly, date and time of receipt at the Commission’s entry point. The next step is the individual reading by 3 or more evaluators (depending on the instrument: IPs and NoEs will have 5 or probably more). These are high-ranking scientists in various fields who are generally considered to have the appropriate skills to judge the incoming proposals, thanks to their high level of professional experience in the public or private sector within areas related to the FP. Before starting their work, the evaluators are all briefed indepth by the Commission about the evaluation process and the criteria to be applied. To ensure impartiality, the evaluators sign a confidentiality and ‘conflict of interest’ declaration. A new feature in FP6 is the possibility for evaluators to do the work from a distance (e.g. at their office or at home, using the EPSS). They are no longer required to be present at a venue in Brussels. Marks and comments for each block of criteria (examples can be found in the next paragraph) are given on a standard individual evaluation form. Criteria may vary between the different areas and instruments. The same is true of weighting and thresholds. Bonus marks may be awarded in cases where a proposal addresses issues relating to gender or science and society in a particularly effective way. The form used at this stage is called the individual assessment report form (IAR). Important criteria Undoubtedly, most of the evaluation criteria used for judging an FP6 proposal will look familiar to FP veterans. Nevertheless, a short enumeration of the most relevant topics may prove useful. For IPs and NoEs, the main common criteria are: - relevance of the objectives of the specific programme; - the potential impact of the project on the state of the art in the research discipline in question and the potential impact on the Community; - organization and management of the Consortium, both of which are required to be of outstanding quality. In addition, the criterion of scientific and technological excellence is of particular significance for IPs, while for NoEs, the excellence of the participants and the quality of the integration have been written into the project. After all, NoEs try to tackle fragmentation in a scientific discipline by bringing about a deep and durable integration of the partner institutes that is expected to continue beyond the period of Community support. The Guides for Proposers contain basic sets of criteria per instrument, i.e. IPs, NoEs, STREPs, CAs, SSAs, HRM actions and specific research projects for SMEs. Where STREPs are concerned, there has to be a satisfactory plan for the management of knowledge, intellectual property and other innovationrelated activities. Meanwhile, for HRM projects, particular attention has to be given to European needs and demands for training and knowledge transfer in the specified research area. The excellent quality and capacity of either host or fellow also have to be addressed explicitly. 33 Proposal marking The evaluators give a general mark for each evaluation criterion on a scale from 0 to 5. The scores indicate the following: 0 = the proposal fails to address the issue under examination due to missing or incomplete information 1 = poor 2 = fair 3 = good 4 = very good 5 = excellent A consensus is arrived at on the basis of all these individual assessments. There must be general agreement on consensus marks and comments for each of the criteria blocks. To mark the end of the administrative process, an overall consensus report is drawn up for a concluding panel meeting, at which final marks for each proposal are given, as well as suggestions for the priority order on the shortlist, for the possible clustering of proposals, amendments and so on. During this process, panels may convene hearings at which proposal representatives are given the opportunity to clarify certain points of their proposal and answer evaluators’ questions. These hearings are not designed to give proposers an opportunity to present their proposal! In cases where proposals receive the same marks following the initial examination, the panel will call a re-examination with a view to placing them in order of priority, if possible and relevant. The final panel report is always signed by the panel rapporteur and the panel chairperson. This report represents the evaluators’ advice to the Commission. Proposers will receive an Evaluation Summary Report (ESR), based on this document. At a minimum, the ESR reflects the panel’s views for each block of criteria and lists the overall comments and a final overall score, as well as the consensus arguments. At this stage, the Commission services take care of the follow-up by issuing the final ranking lists and the ESR to the coordinators, accompanied by a ‘quick info letter’. All this information is also sent to the Programme Committee, which plays an advisory role. Finally, the Commission decides whether to select or reject each proposal, and initiates the contract negotiation phase for those selected (see Chapter 7). The coordinators of the rejected proposals are informed in a personal letter (not an e-mail) explaining the reasons why their proposal was not selected. The Commission reserves the right to draw up a reserve list of proposals that have been involved in contract negotiation without agreement on funding, or proposals for which funding was previously unavailable (for instance in case of an open call submission or when budget reallocations have occurred). Evaluation of two-stage proposals In a two-stage proposal submission procedure, the evaluation of the short proposal (composed of only 10-15 pages) is based on the full proposal process described above. Submitters who pass all the thresholds are subsequently invited to complete the text within a given time frame. The invitation to do so is sent to the coordinator, together with the consensus report on the short text. References Guidelines on Proposal Evaluation and Selection Procedures (COM C/2003/883; 27.03.2003) Guidance Notes for Evaluators (these vary per call identifier) Both documents can be accessed through the calls page on the CORDIS website: http://fp6.cordis.lu/fp6/calls-open.cfm 34 7. Contractual regulations 7.1. Contract negotiation For proposals selected for funding, the European Commission will start negotiation meetings with the Consortium to establish a contract. Before the talks start, the proposers receive the Evaluation Summary Report, informing them of the evaluation results and the changes that have to be effected. The letter in which the Commission invites the proposers to enter into negotiations, also outlines the ‘Framework for Negotiation’ in which the suggestions for emendations in the project proposal are laid down. The letter also includes a time schedule and location for the meetings (usually Brussels or, in some IST cases, Luxembourg), the name of the project officer (sometimes assisted by one or more members of the Administrative Staff), who will represent the Commission during the negotiations and who is responsible for the project throughout its duration and the so-called ‘negotiation mandate’: the framework of the EC financial contribution for this particular project. By way of preparation for the negotiation talks, the project officer asks the coordinator to fill in Contract Preparation Forms (CPF). There are CPFs for each instrument. They are designed to be as compatible as possible with the proposal submission forms, so that the information can be directly transferred. Duly completed CPFs must be received at least five working days prior to the first negotiation meeting. The final agreed version of the CPFs must be submitted to the project officer in two unbound copies on white paper with original signatures, and in electronic format using either the Word version or (preferably) the CPF editor application. Required supporting documentation (if any) should also be provided in duplicate. Partners also have to fill in their share of CPFs: normally only forms A2a, A2b and A2c (dependent on the instrument). The coordinator normally attends the negotiation meetings. The other members of the Consortium are not required to be present. However, it is of importance to take along at least one other key partner (or the financial manager from the Administrative Support Team – for details, see Chapter 8) to keep the negotiation teams on both sides in balance. Although standard negotiation procedure mentions two meetings, in some cases the PO may decide to restrict the talks to a single session. On the other hand, more than two meetings may be necessary. CPF guidance The Liaison Office has prepared a small guideline to facilitate the filling in of CPFs – the administrative forms (part A), with standard answers to questions about legalities (address, legal status, cost model). Call the LO for this service! Negotiation is no guarantee for funding At first sight, there doesn’t seem to be a cloud in the sky when the Commission’s negotiation offer is delivered to the coordinator: what could possibly go wrong at this stage? To put it bluntly: everything. To start with, the consortia may have asked more money for their projects than there is to spend, so budget cuts will be proposed. The level of funding offered at negotiations may be unacceptable to the project participants, taking account of the often proposed changes in the work packages. Then, individual participants may wish to withdraw during the course of negotiations due to budget distribution problems. If the Commission thinks that the withdrawal of one proposer has removed a significant justification for doing the work, or a vital necessary resource, it may terminate further negotiation talks or suspend them, until the partners have come up with a solution that is acceptable to both sides. And potential signatories may be subject to a financial check, which could result in problems discovered concerning the legal and/or financial status or lack of certification. And lastly, funding must be committed promptly (i.e. in the budget year for which the call is published). The slowing down of the negotiation process could endanger that in a serious manner. The letter of invitation mostly specifies the time limit for negotiations for ‘your’ specific project. 35 7.2. Contract signature Assuming that the negotiations proceed favourably, the Commission draws up a contract establishing the rights and obligations of all participants. In particular, these include provisions for scientific, technological and financial monitoring, procedures for the updating of objectives, changes in Consortium membership, payment of the Community’s financial contribution and rules for dissemination and use of knowledge. The contract is concluded between the European Commission and the coordinator on behalf of the Consortium. The conclusion of a Consortium Agreement is obligatory for most actions in order to fix the conditions and modalities of cooperation between partners. For NoEs and IPs, the Consortium Agreement has to be signed before the contract. The EC is not party to Coordination Actions and does not therefore have to give its approval in such cases. As already mentioned in Chapter 4, the contract has been simplified considerably. In FP5, there were 32 model contracts, one for each instrument. In FP6, there is only one, with a variable annex per instrument. It consists of a single core and 6 annexes, which form an integral part of the contract: - Annex I: The description of the work - Annex II: General Conditions - Annex III: Specific provisions related to the instrument - Annex IV: Form A – consent of contractors to accede to the contract - Annex V: Form B – accession of new legal entities of the contract - Annex VI: Form C – financial statement per instrument In Annex 3 of this guide, a contract outline is given by way of reference. The core contract is made with the coordinator, as stated above, who then signs it on behalf of the Consortium. The Consortium members must accede within a given number of days (mostly between 45 and 90). Mandates, as used in FP5, have disappeared. Failure to accede may result in termination of the contract by the Commission. The areas dealt with in the core contract include: - the maximum financial contribution by the Commission; (This is the only figure in the contract; all other financial decisions, like the distribution of funds, originate from the Consortium.) - the reports, due within 45 days of the end of the period; (The Commission is required to respond within 60 days or the reports are deemed to be accepted.) - the payment modalities, according to the specified reporting periods. The contract is drawn up under Belgian law, which means that it is guided by the principle of ‘good faith’. Annex II contains the definitions of all categories: knowledge, pre-existing know-how, use, access rights, and many other background concepts like financial provisions (including audit certificates) and provisions in the event of contract breach. Of course, the general legal and administrative rules are also included, like for instance the Consortium’s obligations. The Consortium must take all necessary and reasonable measures to obtain the intended results and to ensure efficient implementation. Furthermore, the Commission has to be informed of changes that might affect the project’s implementation and the rights of the Community. To that end, detailed data must be provided. The coordinator plays a leading intermediary role. He is the primary communicator within the Consortium and he receives and distributes all payments made by the Commission (‘postman and banker’). He must ensure there are no conflicts of interest within the team which might jeopardize the course of the project. Contractors have their own obligations, like upholding certain ethical principles and safeguarding equal opportunities. As far as reporting is concerned, scientific reports are due every 12 months, providing a Consortium-level overview of the activities carried out by the partners during the designated period, a description of the progress made towards scientific and technological objectives and possible innovationrelated activities. A periodic management report must also be prepared, including a justification of the resources deployed by the contractors. A summary financial report is also required, bringing together the costs 36 incurred by all of the contractors in an aggregate form, on the basis of the financial statements they fill in. Sixty days at the latest after the end of the certification period, each contractor has to submit an audit certificate, stating the correctness of the information given in the financial statement. Background documents The Research Directorate-Generals set up a Model Contract Working Group to work on the drafting of model contracts for the new instruments for FP6. The working group was mandated to hold regular meetings with representatives of Member States and associated states. Most of the available material can be found on the following website (as well as on the relevant CORDIS pages): http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6/working-groups/modelcontract/index_en.html Legal documents about the VU During FP5, Brussels regularly contacted contractors asking them for documentation regarding the legal status of the Vrije Universiteit. In most cases, the officials at the Directorate-General accepted excerpts from the Chamber of Commerce register or a copy of the VU statutes or the university regulations. Before negotiations – in the CPF phase – all participants must be able to provide, upon request, up-to-date copies of the legal documents establishing the organization (i.e. certification of registration and or articles of association. The legal existence of this material must pre-date the contract signature (coordinator) or the accession to the contract (the other partners). So, in addition to the material that was mentioned earlier, the following documentation has been prepared at the central university level: • • • a statement, signed by the chairperson and the vice chairperson of the Executive Board, certifying that the VU, as a legal body governed by public law, is an institution for higher education established under the Higher Education and Research Act, and as such is fully funded by the Dutch Government; an organization chart depicting the structure of the VU and VU University Medical Center (in Dutch and English); for financial purposes, selected sections of the most recent Annual Report (with the audit report) are available. All of these documents can be obtained at the VU Liaison Office; on the VU website (http://www.vu.nl) the following can be downloaded: • the organization chart, at ‘English’ > ‘Organization’ > ‘Organization chart’ (or Dutch: ‘Organisatie’ > ‘Over de VU’ > ‘Organogram VU’). Hard copies (full colour) are available at the Department of Communications (tel. 45666), e-mail [email protected] • the Annual Report, at ‘Organisatie’ > ‘Over de VU’ > ‘Jaarverslag VU’ (Dutch only) • the ‘Statuut VU’, ‘Universiteitsreglement’ and ‘Statuten VU-Vereniging’ at ‘Organisatie’ > Reglementen 37 38 8. Project execution The participants’ main obligations are to carry out the project within a set time limit, within the objectives of the work programme, and to use and disseminate the results. For its part, the Commission undertakes to make a financial contribution towards the execution of the project, usually by reimbursing a percentage of the project costs. The Commission gives a full account of its interests once the contract has been signed. Since it shares responsibility for the content and the impact of the project, it is very much in the Commission's interests that the project be successful. To this end, the Commission assigns a project officer to each project. The project officer monitors the project to ensure that it develops in accordance with the contract (in terms of deliverables, milestones and finance). This individual is an important counterpart to the project coordinator. The project officer should be contacted if any problems, unexpected situations or irregularities occur during project implementation. The contract comes into force on the day it is signed by the coordinator and the Commission. 8.1. Outline of collective responsibility In the event of problems or failure on the part of one or more participants, Consortia are bound to take all necessary measures at management, scientific and technical level to fulfil the objectives of an operation. Noncompliance with the stated planning and objectives by one or more partners should be addressed immediately and with a high degree of professionalism. Furthermore, solutions should be based on the principle of mutual support. Should one or more partners fail to comply with the planning and objectives, their role will be taken over by other partners (or new partners). Aside from this purely technical responsibility, there is also a collective financial responsibility. However, this does not apply to public sector bodies, nor to private non-profit organizations acting as public bodies. This means the university is excluded from collective financial responsibility. Management Since the Consortium is responsible for the successful progress of the project, strong and decisive internal and external management is a must. This is especially true with regard to FP6, in which the Consortium is required to provide nearly all internal and external management. To this end, the Consortium has to establish a mechanism for decision-making, budgeting control and reporting. Depending on the type of instrument involved, this requires a more formal management system than those used in previous framework programmes. This is particularly the case with the new instruments, within which this management task takes on enormous proportions. The following three-layered, practical model can be quite easily adapted to fit all Commission projects. 1. The top decision-making level and high-level advice 2. The management level 3. The work level 39 Source: UNITE website, Appendix 1 to the UNECA Assembly The Assembly consists of fully authorized representatives from all parties. These are the decision-makers. The Assembly's decisions have an enormous impact on all parties and are binding for all parties. Coordinator The coordinator's two basic tasks with respect to the Commission are those of ‘banker’ and ‘postman’. In most cases, the coordinator also has more extensive tasks. He chairs the Assembly, to ensure the effective dissemination of information within the Consortium, and is a member of the Executive Committee. Executive Committee The Executive Committee forms the managerial heart of the Consortium. It consists of the coordinator and the head of the Task Forces. While the Assembly exercises decision-making power in all main areas, the Executive Committee is responsible for the supervision and guidance of all Consortium planning, reporting and archiving. It budgets, plans and performs typical management and coordination tasks. Given the enormous workload involved, especially in the larger projects, it is advisable for the Executive Committee to set up an Administrative Support Team. Administrative Support Team The Administrative Support Team is made up of professionals, normally supplied by the partners. Its task is to handle the bulk of the Consortium's administrative workload, on behalf of the Executive Committee. Task Forces The Task Forces consist of representatives from all of the partners. They perform all the real work for the Consortium. Each Task Force carries out a given task or activity. The Task Forces are bound by decisions made in the Assembly. Scientific Advisory Board This board's role is to monitor the Consortium's scientific activities and to provide advice, either in response to a request or on its own initiative. The status and credibility of its membership must be such that its advice will always be taken seriously. The nomenclature may differ; for example, in some projects, the Assembly is called ‘Network Steering Committee’. This is up to the consortium; it is therefore important that the consortium agreement text uses the names that reflect this project’s situation. 8.2. Cost models and VAT Universities and other non-profit organizations usually charge 100% of the additional costs. As mentioned before, this practice is governed by the additional cost model (AC), which involves charging all eligible, direct 40 additional costs and a flat rate for indirect costs. The flat rate is equivalent to 20% of all direct additional costs, minus the cost of subcontracts. As we have seen in Chapter 4, there are two other active models for participants in typical research operations. These are full cost with actual indirect costs (FC), and full cost with indirect flat rate costs (FCF). The Vrije Universiteit – including the VUmc – only uses the additional cost system (AC), since the university's financial accounting practices do not fulfil the conditions for FC and FCF. As FP6's entire financial regime is based on participants using their own standard financial regime, there is no difficulty in applying any costs incurred to the permitted costing system. The cost categories used for FP6 are a subset of (= derived from) the university’s own categories. They are a subset since they have to meet the definition of eligible costs mentioned in the contract (see the Model Contract and the FP6 Financial Guidelines). These cost models are applicable to all FP6 instruments, where the Community's contribution takes the form of an integration grant (NoEs) or a budget grant (IPs, STREPs, specific SME actions, I3, CAs and certain SSAs). They do not apply to those instruments where the Community's financial contribution takes the form of a lump sum grant (certain Specific Support Actions and certain actions promoting Human Resources and Mobility). Value Added Tax In FP5, research carried out on the Community's behalf was zero-rated for value added tax (VAT). This implied that any VAT charged could be reclaimed from the national inland revenue department. In FP6, however, these services are untaxed (due to a recent change in national tax rules interpretations). This means that VAT charged cannot be reclaimed any more from the above mentioned department. For universities in The Netherlands, this is a very unfavourable development. Since paid VAT cannot be included in the Commission’s contribution to the project, any VAT charged to Consortium partners in The Netherlands is at their own expenditure. Note: additional information on VAT can be obtained from the VU's Administrative department for finance and personnel (Dienst Financiën en Personeel). 8.3. Controls Two kinds of controls are used: ex-ante controls (before the contract has been signed) and ex-post controls (during implementation of the project and following its completion). Ex-ante controls The purpose of ex-ante controls is to verify the participants' financial capacity. The financial capacity of public bodies (such as the VU) does not generally have to be verified, regardless of the type of instrument in which they are involved. Ex-post controls The Commission may arrange for audits to be carried out at any time during the contract and up to five years after the end of the project. The audits, which are always carried out on a confidential basis, may cover: • scientific aspects; • technological aspects; • ethical aspects; • financial aspects (relating to costs); • any other aspects (financial accounting and management principles). 8.4. Reporting An instrument may have one single reporting period or several reporting periods, depending on its type. This is established in the second paragraph of Article 8 and mentioned in Article 6 of the core contract of the FP6 model contract. Information on the procedure and the reporting period is clearly stated in the Financial Guidelines for Indirect Actions of the Sixth Framework Programmes (draft version). The coordinator must submit the following periodic reports to the Commission on behalf of the Consortium, by electronic means and by post, within 45 calendar days of the end of each reporting period (as stated in Article 6 of the core contract). These periodic reports are covered in the first 41 paragraph of Article 7 of the core contract and the first, second and fifth paragraphs of Article II.7 of Annex II (General Conditions) to the FP6 MC: • a periodic activity report containing an overview of the activities carried out by the Consortium during the period in question, a description of the progress towards the objectives of the project, a description of the progress towards the milestones and deliverables foreseen, the identification of any problems encountered and corrective action taken. An updated plan for using and disseminating the knowledge is included as a separate part of this report; • a periodic management report for the period in question, including a justification of the resources deployed by each contractor, linking them to the activities implemented and justifying their necessity. Contractors, like universities, using the additional cost model must identify all the resources employed on the project and provide a global estimate of all their costs (not just the additional eligible costs which are reported in the financial statement, but also their non-additional or recurring costs). The FP6 Financial Guidelines give extensive and useful information on cost allocation, reporting modalities and fund distribution within the Consortium, together with examples, as an extra service to the participants. How to deal with the financial and contractual rules at the work place Inevitably, the truth about the implementation of financial and contractual procedures in FP6 can be found in legal documents such as the ‘Financial Regulation of the European Communities’, the ‘Rules for participation and dissemination of the results of the Sixth Framework Programme’ (both adopted in 2002). However, these papers appear unreadable to the general public. To help sort out the basics and their effect on everyday practical life, a few guiding documents have been prepared. The most prominent of these is the Guide to Financial Issues relating to Indirect Actions of the Sixth Framework Programmes (continuously updated since 2003). This contains various sample calculations that highlight the relevant principles of the current reimbursement schemes and the contractual backgrounds. One very useful feature is that the footnotes to the main text contain the most relevant references to the legal documents (for instance, references to the Model Contract). But even this guide is unable to translate the rules and regulations into procedures for a particular workplace, i.e. your faculty or institute. It is therefore worth remembering that many financial departments within the university have had ample experience of EU project administration, derived from best practices in FP4 or FP5. Generally speaking, this can make a sound basis for coping with FP6 actions, especially with regard to the subjective terms for eligibility of costs that are required to be current, economic, necessary and in accordance with the usual accounting practices. For some workplaces, it is advisable to update the faculty or institution protocols for project management (‘projectbeheer’), the set of procedures for producing a consistent project file (with copies of the legal and financial documents, the annexes and employee forms, including invoices and reimbursement forms) and have them pre-checked by the Audit Department or the internal auditor (within the VU or the VUmc, this is the ‘Accountantsdienst’. This facilitates discussion of the best accounting treatment within the faculty and results in the consistency demanded by the EU. 8.5. Payment modalities The scheduled payments and pre-financing for the FP6 instrument and actions are made to the coordinator on a periodic basis, in accordance with the financial statements and relevant reports submitted by the Consortium on the activities carried out in the same period as indicated in Annex II and where applicable in Annex III of the contract. The contract specifies the maximum EU contribution to a Consortium, but does not specify the distribution of the funds among participants, enabling the Consortium to manage its own financial affairs. The coordinator opens an account to receive the Commission’s contribution, and distributes the contractors’ share without unjustified delays, on the basis of an autonomous decision by the Consortium (as handled in the Consortium Agreement). 42 Professional capacities In order to meet all these demands the coordinator must have the professionalism and the capacity to carry out the necessary financial administration of the project. Alternatively he can outsource this task to a financial auditor or another financial expert, while retaining final responsibility. Project schedule The evolution of the project is articulated in terms of a number of periods. At the end of each period, the Consortium is required to provide the Commission with the relevant reports and certificates. The Consortium establishes these periods in detail in Annex I to the contract. The contract itself also contains clear references to these periods. Pre-financing and payments All funds transferred to the coordinator by the Commission are treated as pre-financing. They are only considered to be payment if the financial statement covering a specific period of the project (intermediate or final) has been certified by an independent, external auditor and if the Commission deems the costs to be ‘reasonable’ based on the analysis of the periodic activity reports and deliverables. The project pre-financing mechanism (initial or intermediate) covers many options depending on the situation at hand. Those options take many factors into account: whether or not the instrument is subject to ‘collective responsibility’, the number of reporting periods, and the number and timing of the auditing certificates. Instruments without ‘collective responsibility’ are entitled to receive maximum pre-financing of 80% (85% in exceptional cases) of the estimated EU financial contribution over the period indicated in Annex I. Instruments with ‘collective responsibility’ are entitled to receive maximum pre-financing of 85% of the estimated EU financial contribution over the period indicated in Annex I. The projects receive the pre-financing within 45 days of the entry into force of the project. Payments made by the Commission are in euros. Contractors not using the European currency, are required to use the exchange rate of the month in which the financial statements are prepared. Payment schedule The project payment mechanism includes many options depending on the instruments and situations which apply. The Commission expects periodic reports from the Consortium outlining the previous activities, accompanied by a financial report with a management-level justification of the costs incurred over the period in question. Once the Commission has accepted the financial report, an amount equivalent to the advance payment for the period will be converted into an accepted payment. 43 Final payment The final Community contribution is paid after the coordinator has submitted the following documentation to the Commission on behalf of the Consortium, within 45 calendar days of the end of the reporting period, by electronic means or by post: a final activity report covering all the work, objectives, results and so on, and a final management report covering the full duration of the project, including a justification of the resources deployed, forms, audit certificates and so on. The Commission evaluates the documentation submitted. The evaluation is normally completed within 45 calendar days of the receipt of the requested reports. However, the Commission services may continue to review the reports up to 90 days after receipt. If the reports are approved, the Community financial contribution is paid in accordance with the rules for payment, and according to the type of instrument concerned. The payment of the Community financial contribution is considered final, subject to the results of a possible audit or review, which may be carried out up to five years after the end of the project. Financial accounting All organizations, including universities and other public institutions, must keep proper books of account and supporting documentation to justify the eligible costs they charge. The relevant information must be kept for a period of five years after the end of action. The contractor is free to choose its own auditor providing that the necessary professional requirements are met. This may be the contractor’s current auditor. The auditor must be independent of the contractor and must be qualified to carry out statutory audits of accounting documents. A private auditor is required to be a member of the profession’s national organization. In case of public legal entities (like universities), the contractor concerned may opt for a competent public officer/public auditor, providing it can demonstrate the independence thereof. Recoveries At the start of FP6, the Commission clearly states that it will carry out regular and strict controls on the costs claimed by the Consortium. The Consortium or the contractor is obliged to reimburse the Commission for any amount unduly paid to a contractor. This repayment must be made according to the terms and by the date stipulated by the Commission. This situation may occur, for example, where: • the total pre-financing is greater than the total accepted Community financial contribution at the end of a project; • a contractor has overstated expenditure and has consequently received an unjustified financial contribution from the Community. Sanctions The Community is entitled to claim liquidated damages from a contractor who is found to have overestimated expenditure and who has consequently received an unjustified financial contribution from the Community. In addition to liquidated damages, any contractor declared to be in breach of its contractual obligations will be liable to financial penalties. Exclusion Any participant who has committed an irregularity in the implementation of an FP6 indirect action may lose all its rights to submit a proposal within the FP6. According to the seriousness of the irregularity noted, either a part of the legal entity (e.g. a service, a centre, a department) or the whole legal entity (e.g. the whole university) may be excluded. In the event of an irregularity, therefore, a contractor can be excluded not only from the contract where the irregularity has been noted or has occurred, but also from other current contracts with the Commission in which it is involved. 44 References Programmes (draft for discussion purposes, updated regularly) Downloadable at http://www.cordis.lu/fp6/find-doc.htm#other An outline of possible NoE management systems is given on the UNITE website, where a number of very valuable documents can be downloaded concerning the management structures in large NoE projects, as a legal structure sketch, the formal management system, planning schedules, financial forms: see http://www.unite.be > Consortium Agreements 45 46 9. Intellectual Property Rights issues The Rules for Participation state that, in executing an RTD project under FP6, the protection of intellectual property rights (IPR) and the use and dissemination of research results should be ensured, as well as the partners’ mutual access to pre-existing know-how and to knowledge arising from research work. When it comes to implementation, the Rules for Participation allow the participants to agree among themselves on the most suitable arrangements for the exploitation of their knowledge. These agreements form part of the Consortium Agreement. Thus in the model contract, IPR is only dealt with in general terms - in Part C of Annex II in the Model Contract, General Conditions. The details are laid down in the Consortium Agreement. Generally speaking, the Model Contract sets out the standards and the Consortium Agreement fills in the specifics. On the whole, the Model Contract provides adequate and effective protection in standard RTD projects, even those which involve industrial or commercial applications. But in the Consortium Agreement it is possible for the partners to agree upon other specified arrangements. For example, a partner is granted the right to explicitly exclude certain pre-existing know-how before signing the Consortium Agreement, or to establish a regime of economic access rights different from those specified in the Model Contract. The key concept behind all this is that intellectual property rights and all IPR-related issues must be actively managed. Accordingly, if confidentiality is required with regard to any part of the project results, the partner has to stipulate this. 9.1. Definitions Key definition: intellectual property rights include - besides copyright patents, trade secrets, trademarks (or brand names) and design right. Patents protect an invention for a limited period of time; a patent provides the owner (i.e. the inventor) with a monopoly right on an application. The duration of patents varies from country to country but lasts usually no longer than 20 years. A patent must be registered and the costs of the application may be high. Application for patents are handled by the Intellectual Property Desk (Bureau voor de Industriële Eigendom or BIE), an independent agency of the Ministry of Economic Affairs. Before tackling the issues surrounding IPR, it is useful to get acquainted with the most important concepts, and the way in which they are defined and handled in FP6. The table below gives a concise (non-exhaustive) listing: Pre-existing know-how (PEK) The information which is held by participants prior to the conclusion of the contract (‘background’) or acquired in parallel to it (‘sideground’) • PEK brought into the project always remains the property of the partner in question. Access rights Licences and user rights to pre-existing knowledge and/or to knowledge • Access rights are granted on request (not automatically). • Access rights to PEK are granted on a royalty-free basis, unless otherwise agreed before signing the contract with the EC, and under fair and non-discriminatory conditions. • Access rights to Knowledge are granted on a royalty-free basis for Knowledge needed in order to carry out one’s own work and Knowledge needed to make use of one’s own Knowledge, unless other financial conditions are greed before signing the contract with the EC The results of the project, including Knowledge 47 information, whether or not they can be protected by IPR, as well as the rights associated with them Direct or indirect utilization of Knowledge in research activities or for developing, creating and marketing a product or process or for creating and providing a service Use Source: IPR Helpdesk 2003 9.2. IPR in the Consortium Agreement The UNITE website features very valuable comments concerning the IPR issues in each of the Consortium Agreement models. The EARTO-UNITE (full-text) model for an Integrated Projects FP6 Consortium Agreement includes IPR clauses which are considered to be the most realistic and balanced for FP6, in accordance with the Community rules. The same applies to the UNECA text (Networks of Excellence). As far as the other models (Helmholtz, ANRT) are concerned, it may prove useful to check the UNITE website before signing a text based on one of these models, provided you are a potential partner in a Consortium. The correct model is normally selected following the Consortium’s meetings to discuss all the technical, commercial, organizational, financial and legal aspects of a project. But if these meetings were electronic, always check with the coordinator. The IPR Helpdesk in Brussels is a special project of the Enterprise Directorate-General, co-financed with the FP5 budget. This is another valuable source of information on the necessary steps for safeguarding IPR and related topics, like patents. A lot of documentary information is available, both on the Internet and at the Helpdesk’s offices in Brussels (see address list). For an overview, visit http://www.ipr-helpdesk.org/. The UNITE and IPR office desks – manned by representatives of EU academia and research institutes – can answer any questions by e-mail. And, of course, the VU Liaison Office can access the national Network of Dutch University Liaison Officers for intricate and delicate matters. In UNITE circles it is stressed that failure to properly discuss IPR issues can seriously damage otherwise healthy working relations within the Consortium when it comes to dissemination and use. Many researchers turn a blind eye to the ‘hard core’ legalities because the impact of non-arrangement is not always clear. European Patent Organization (EPO) Established by the Convention on the Grant of European Patents (EPC) signed in Munich 1973, the EPO is the outcome of the European countries’ collective political determination to establish a uniform patent system in Europe. It is a centralized patent grant system administered by the European Patent Office on behalf of all contracting states, and a model of successful cooperation in Europe. The EPO’s task is to grant European patents for inventions, on the basis of a centralized procedure. For more information, see ‘References’ below. References IPR Helpdesk, The new IPR regime under FP6, http://www.ipr-helpdesk.org/ European Patent Office, http://www.european-patent-office.org/gr_index.htm Guide to Intellectual Property Rights for FP6 projects: http://www.cordis.lu/fp6/find-doc.htm#ipr The EC’s IPR portal can be found on the EUROPA website: http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/era/ipr_en.html The Bureau voor de Industriële Eigendom (BIE) website address: http://www.bie.nl/ The various Consortium Agreement models can be accessed through http://www.unite.be > Consortium Agreements 48 10. Support and advice The VU Liaison Office provides all the necessary links between the university and the European Union. It gives researchers at the VU a useful supplement to their ties with national and international bodies and with the European Commission. It also continuously monitors development within existing RTD programmes and provides VU researchers with up-to-the-minute information on these programmes, both within the FP and outside it (i.e. the programmes and projects administered by External Assistance DirectorateGeneral). The role of the VU office is a predominantly informal one, concentrating on those tasks for which its proximity to VU researchers and contacts in Brussels provide special advantages in the form of early, informal information-gathering and personal contacts. It also maintains formal links. The office participates in several national advisory boards to EU’s programmes. These include the international Santander Sectorial Group of Research Liaison Officers, the European Association of Research Managers and Administrators (EARMA), the Network of Dutch Liaison Officers (NDLO), UNITE and NEST. The VU office provides advice and information free of charge. This takes the form of a general monitoring system and news services, like a monthly email and Internet newsletter, and regular newsflashes. Additional services are provided to VU faculties that participate in the office’s annual contribution system (more details on this system can be obtained from the office). These additional services include: - up-to-date information on developments within RTD programmes (including ‘early warning’); - advice on general and specific questions regarding research promoted by the EU; - document delivery; - fact-finding in relation to research proposals and project management; - informal contacts with European Commission staff; - advice on financial aspects and contract negotiations; - troubleshooting (i.e. in the project execution phase); - organizing seminars, workshops and meetings at the VU and in Brussels. Cooperation with Administrative Staff Due to recent policy developments within the VU, the Liaison Office now works in close cooperation with the senior subsidies advisor in the Administrative Staff for Education and Research (Bestuursstaf Onderwijs en Onderzoek). See the authors’ details on page 4 for names and addresses. Furthermore, it is evident that the LO could not do the work without its contacts with the research desk office(r)s and with the researchers and financial managers at the faculties. Special note: the VU Liaison Office also provides services (information and advice) of a general nature with regard to national funding (i.e. NWO, KNAW, SENTER and the charity funds). In addition, the office advises on the fiscal ‘S&O’ instrument (from SENTER), which has proved highly beneficial to the VU in recent years. Information about these services is available at our address (see page 4). 49 50 Annex 1. Synopsis of RTD priorities, areas and actions in FP6 specific programmes Preliminary remark: the priorities, areas and actions are given according to the most recent version of the Work Programmes of the thematic priorities. Because Work Programmes are often updated during FP6’s life cycle, check back regularly on the CORDIS services to find out the last state of affairs. EURATOM (Nuclear energy) has been excluded from this synopsis. 1. Integrating and strengthening the European Research Area (ERA) 1.1. Thematic areas 1.1.1. Life sciences, genomics and biotechnology for health Research priorities: i) Advanced genomics and its applications for health a. Fundamental knowledge and basic tools for functional genomics in all organisms • Gene expression and proteomics • Structural genomics • Comparative genomics and population genetics • Bioinformatics • Multidisciplinary functional genomics approaches to basic biological processes b. Application of knowledge and technologies in the field of genomics and biotechnology for health • Rational and accelerated development of new, safer, more effective drugs including pharmacogenomics approaches • Development of new diagnostics • Development of new in vitro tests to replace animal experimentation • Development and testing of new preventive and therapeutic tools, such as somatic gene and cell therapies (in particular stem cell therapies), for example those on neurological and neuromuscular disorders and immunotherapies • Innovative research in post-genomics, which has high potential for application ii) Combating major diseases a. Applications-oriented genomic approaches to medical knowledge and technologies • Combating cardiovascular disease, diabetes and rare diseases • Combating resistance to antibiotics and other drugs • Studying the brain and combating diseases of the nervous system • Studying human development and the ageing process b. Combating cancer c. Confronting the major communicable diseases linked to poverty (AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis) • Post-genomic research and clinical trials to combat AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis 1.1.2. Information society technologies Strategic objectives: - Pushing the limits of CMOS and preparing for post-CMOS - Micro and nanosystems - Broadband for all - Mobile and wireless systems beyond 3G - Towards a global dependability and security framework - Multimodal interfaces - Semantic-based knowledge systems - Networked audiovisual systems and home platforms - Networked businesses and governments - e-Safety for road and air transport - e-Health - Technology-enhanced learning and access to cultural heritage - Advanced displays - Optical, opto-electronic, and photonic functional components - Open development platforms for software and services - Cognitive systems 51 - Embedded systems Applications and services for the mobile user and worker Cross-media content for leisure and entertainment GRID-based systems for solving complex problems Improving risk management e-Inclusion Products and services engineering 2010 Future and emerging technologies (FET) FET Open Proactive initiatives Research networking test-beds General accompanying actions 1.1.3. Nanotechnology and nanosciences, knowledge-based multifunctional materials, new production processes and devices Research priorities: i) Nanotechnologies and nanosciences - Long-term interdisciplinary research into understanding phenomena, mastering processes and developing research tools - Nano-biotechnologies - Nanometre-scale engineering techniques to create materials and components - Development of handling and control devices and instruments - Applications in areas such as health and medical systems, chemistry, energy, optics, food and the environment ii) Knowledge-based multifunctional materials - Development of fundamental knowledge - Technologies associated with the production, transformation and processing of knowledge-based multifunctional materials - Engineering support for materials development iii) New production processes and devices - Development of new processes and flexible & intelligent manufacturing systems - Systems research and hazard control - Optimizing the life-cycle of industrial systems, products and services iv) Integration of nanotechnologies, new materials, and new production technologies for improved construction, chemicals and surface transport Human-friendly, safe and efficient construction New generation of multifunctional materials and technologies for surface transport Mastering chemicals and creating new eco-efficient processes and synthesis routes 1.1.4. Aeronautics and space Research priorities: i) Aeronautics - Open upstream research - Integrated focused downstream research - Networking European aeronautics research ii) Space - Galileo - GMES - Satellite telecommunications 1.1.5. Food quality and safety Research areas: - Total food chain - Epidemiology of food-related diseases and allergies - Impact of food on health - ‘Traceability’ processes along the production chain - Methods of analysis, detection and control - Safer and environmentally friendly production methods and technologies and healthier food stuffs - Impact of animal feed on human health - Environmental health risks 1.1.6. Sustainable development, global change and ecosystems 52 1.1.6.1. Sustainable energy systems Research activities having an impact in the short and medium term: - Clean energy, in particular renewable energy sources and their integration in the energy system, including storage, distribution and use - Energy savings and energy efficiency, including those to be achieved through the use of renewable raw materials - Alternative motor fuels Research activities having an impact in the medium and longer term: - Fuel cells, including their applications - New technologies for energy carriers/transport and storage, in particular hydrogen - New and advanced concepts in renewable energy technologies - Capture and sequestration of CO2, associated with cleaner fossil fuel plants - Socio-economic tools and concepts for energy strategy 1.1.6.2. Sustainable surface transport Research priorities: - New technologies and concepts for all surface transport modes (road, rail and waterborne) - Advanced design and production techniques - Re-balancing and integrating different transport modes - Increasing road, rail and waterborne safety and avoiding traffic congestion 1.1.6.3. Global change and ecosystems Research priorities: - Impact and mechanisms of greenhouse gas emissions and atmospheric pollutants on climate, ozone depletion and carbon sinks - Water cycle, including soil-related aspects - Biodiversity and ecosystems - Mechanisms of desertification and natural disasters - Strategies for sustainable land management, including coastal zones, agricultural land and forests - Operational forecasting and modelling including global climatic change observation systems - Complementary research - Cross-cutting issue: sustainable development concepts and tools - Specific support actions 1.1.7. Citizens and governance in a knowledge-based society Research priorities i) Knowledge-based society and cohesion - Improving the generation, distribution and use of knowledge and its impact on economic and social development - Options and choices for the development of a knowledge-based society - The variety of paths towards a knowledge society ii) Citizenship, democracy and new forms of governance - The implications of European integration and enlargement for governance and the citizen - Articulation of areas of responsibility and new forms of governance - Issues connected with the resolution of conflicts and restoration of peace and justice - New forms of citizenship and cultural identities 1.2. Specific activities covering a wider field of research (‘Crosscutting activities’) i) Research for policy support ii) New and emerging science and technology (NEST) - Adventure projects - Insight projects - Pathfinder initiatives - NEST support iii) Specific SME activities - Cooperative research (CRAFT) - Collective research 53 iv) Specific measures in support of international cooperation (INCO) helping to open up the ERA to the rest of the world Cooperation with third countries (Developing Countries; Mediterranean Partner Countries; Western Balkan Countries; Russia and the other New Independent States) Multilateral coordination of national RTD policies and activities v) Joint Research Centre activities 2. Structuring the European Research Area 2.1. Research and innovation i) Networking the players and encouraging interaction ii) Encouraging regional innovation policies and transregional cooperation iii) Experimenting with new tools and approaches iv) Putting services in place and consolidating them v) Analysing and evaluating innovation in Community research projects vi) Stepping up economic and technological intelligence 2.2. Human resources and mobility (‘Marie Curie Actions’) i) Host-driven actions - Marie Curie Research training networks - Marie Curie Host fellowships for early stage training - Marie Curie Host fellowships for transfer of knowledge - Conferences and training courses ii) Individual-driven actions - Marie Curie Intra-European fellowships - Marie Curie Outgoing international fellowships - Marie Curie Incoming international fellowships iii) Excellence promotion and recognition - Marie Curie Excellence grants - Marie Curie Excellence awards - Marie Curie Chairs iv) Return and reintegration mechanisms 2.3. Research infrastructures i) Transnational access to major research infrastructures ii) Integrating activities iii) Communication network development iv) Design studies v) Construction of new research infrastructures 2.4. Science and society i) Bringing research closer to society ii) Responsible research and application of science and technology iii) Stepping up the science-society dialogue and women in science 3. Strengthening the foundations of the European Research Area 3.1. Support for coordination of research activities i) Coordination of national activities - The ERA-NET scheme - Activities undertaken through European cooperation frameworks - Development of an integrated information system (ERAWATCH) ii) Coordination at European level - Scientific and technological cooperation activities carried out in COST - Strengthened coordination with EUREKA - Collaboration and joint initiatives of specialized European scientific cooperation organizations such as CERN, ESA, ESO, ENO, EMBL, ESRF and ILL 3.2. Development of research/innovation policies Framework for various activities: - Analyses and studies: work relating to foresight, statistics and science and technology indicators - Benchmarking of research and innovation policies at national, regional and European level - Mapping of scientific and technological activities and excellence in Europe - Improving the regulatory and administrative environment for research and innovation 54 - Annex 2. List of groups of target countries for specific measures in support of international cooperation A. Developing countries (ACP, Asia, Latin America) A.1. ACP Africa Angola Benin Botswana Burkina-Faso Burundi Cameroon Cape Verde Central African Republic Chad Comoros Congo (Republic) Congo (Democratic Rep. of) Côte d’Ivoire Djibouti Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Ethiopia Gabon Gambia Ghana Guinea Guinea-Bissau Kenya Lesotho Liberia Madagascar Malawi Mali Mauritania Mauritius Mozambique Namibia Niger Nigeria Rwanda Sao Tome and Principe Senegal Seychelles Sierra Leone Somalia South Africa Sudan Swaziland Tanzania Togo Uganda Zambia Zimbabwe Antigua and Barbuda Bahamas Barbados Belize * Cuba * Dominica Dominican Rep. Grenada Guyana * Haiti Jamaica The Caribbean 55 Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Vincent and Grenadines Suriname * Trinidad and Tobago Cook Islands East Timor1 ** Fiji Kiribati Marshall Islands Micronesia Nauru Niue Palau Papua New Guinea ** Solomon Islands Tonga Tuvalu Vanuatu Western Samoa Pacific A.2. Asia Bangladesh Bhutan Brunei Cambodia China *** India *** Indonesia Lao (People’s Democratic Republic of) Malaysia Maldives Mongolia Nepal Pakistan Philippines Singapore Sri Lanka Thailand Vietnam A.3. Latin America Argentina Bolivia Brazil Chile Colombia Costa Rica Ecuador El Salvador Guatemala Honduras Mexico Nicaragua Panama Paraguay Peru Uruguay Venezuela B. Mediterranean partner countries Algeria Egypt Israel 2 Jordan Lebanon 56 Morocco Syrian Arab Republic Tunisia West Bank and Gaza Strip C. Russia and the other New Independent States Armenia Azerbaijan Belarus Georgia Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Moldova Russia *** Tajikistan Turkmenistan Ukraine Uzbekistan D. Western Balkan countries Albania Bosnia-Herzegovina Croatia Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) Serbia and Montenegro 3 1 2 3 In association process to ACP/EU Cotonou agreement When this country becomes associated with FP6, that status will take precedence Incl. Kosovo as defined by UNSC Resolution 1244 of 10 June 1999 * For participation in INCO, these countries can be considered to be both in ACP and LA regions ** For participation in INCO, these countries can be considered to be both in ACP and Asian regions *** For participation in INCO, China, India and Russia may each be considered as a region in their own right. However, in this case, at least 3 different provinces or states within China, India or Russia must be involved. 57 58 Annex 3 1. What documentation is needed to prepare an RTD proposal for FP6? You will need the following documents to properly submit an RTD proposal: • the relevant call for proposals as issued in the Official Journal of the European Union; • the Guide for Proposers (issued per thematic priority and per call) that is part of the call; • the appropriate Proposal Submission Forms (Parts A and B) or access to the EPSS system for electronic submission; • the work programme for the relevant thematic priority or priorities within the Specific Programme(s); • the appropriate CA model (if required). The following are mandatory reference materials: • the Manual for Evaluating Proposals in FP6; • Model contract formats; • The Rules for Participation; • Policy documents related to the RTD field the proposal is addressing. All these documents are available at CORDIS, the Commission’s RTD web server, at http://www.cordis.lu/fp6 or at the VU Liaison Office. Note: Always be sure to download the latest documents from the Internet. Work programmes, for example, are regularly updated each time a proposal is subject to an intermediate evaluation round. 2. What does an FP6-RTD proposal look like? A typical FP6 proposal - for the sake of clarity, a paper proposal is being referred to here - consists of the following elements: • Administrative proposal forms, Part A (preformatted): - A1: General information on the proposal (title, abstract, keywords etc.) - A2: Info on the coordinator and other partners (one form per partner) - A3: Cost breakdown (one sheet for the whole Consortium) • Technical information or content description, Part B (guideline): The Guide for Proposers gives guidelines for the structuring of the content section, which is not preformatted. Sections B.1 to B.8 provide an overall description of the project, as well as a rough outline plan for the full project period. Section B.9 gives a more detailed work plan broken down into work packages in the first 18 months of the project. Note: For IPs, a preformatted IP Project Effort Form is enclosed, in which person-months for all partner activities have to be noted. Note 2: For Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowships, Part B contains one preformatted form, the ‘Confidential Referee’s Assessment of the Applicant’. Contrary to FP5, anonymity is no longer a requirement! Of all these parts, only one unbound copy has to be submitted. 3. How is a call for proposal structured? A call for proposal text is published in the ‘C’ series (in the ‘Notices’ section) in the Official Journal. Since FP6, the introductory information is published in the main section (e.g. the correspondence addresses at the Commission and the legislative framework for the current call), while the specific conditions are put in separate Annexes. These are structured as follows (examples are given between brackets): - Name of the specific programme (Integrating and Strengthening the ERA) - Activity (‘Life sciences, genomics and biotechnology for health’) 59 - Call title (thematic call in the area of ‘Life sciences, genomics and biotechnology for health’) - Call identifier (FP6-2002-LIFESCIHEALTH) - Date of publication (17 December 2002) - Closure date(s) (25 March 2003 at 17.00 Brussels local time) - Total indicative budget (€ 513m, with breakdown over IP, NoE, STREP, CA, SSA) - Areas called and instruments (topics from work programmes indicated by short titles, linked to various instruments) - Minimum number of participants (per instrument) - Restriction on participation (usually none; only in a few cases are partners required to be SMEs or European Industrial Association/Grouping) - Consortium Agreement necessary (yes or no) - Evaluation procedure (single-stage or two-step) - Evaluation criteria (about certain weightings and thresholds) - Indicative evaluation and contractual timetable (availability of evaluation results and contract signature) 60 Annex 4 Examples of administrative forms: A1, A2, A3 [Note: filled in examples are available on request at the Liaison Office] 61 62 63 64 Annex 5 Basic contract outline The model contract generally consists of two main parts: (I) the core contract; (II) the annexes. (I) CORE CONTRACT: 1. Scope - identification of the project, establishment of the Consortium and the identification of its members 2. Contribution of the Consortium 3. Duration (date of entry into force, starting date of project) 4. Maximum EU financial contribution 5. Reporting – scientific, financial (periodic) 6. Payment modalities 7. Special clauses (specific to the project) For instance: - exemption from financial audit - participation by the Joint Research Centre (JRC) - EEIGs - all complementary provisions - sublicensing of software - signature of Consortium Agreement 8. Amendments 9. Communication 10.Annexes (forming an integral part of the contract) 11.Applicable law (Belgian or Luxembourg) 12.Jurisdiction 13. Signature and language in which the contract is drawn up (II) ANNEXES: I. TECHNICAL ANNEX (description of work) II. GENERAL CONDITIONS Part A: Legal and administrative provisions II.1. Definitions II.2. Performance obligations (of the Consortium, the individual contractors, the coordinator, the Commission) II.3. Responsibility (technical and financial, of EC and contractors) II.4. Force majeure II.5. Prolongation and suspension of the project II.6. Amendments II.7. Termination of the contract 65 II.8. Confidentiality II.9. Publicity II.10. Communication of data for evaluation purposes II.11. Subcontracting II.12. Assignment Part B: Intellectual property rights provisions II.13. Ownership of knowledge II.14. Protection of knowledge II.15. Use and dissemination II.16. Access rights II.17. Incompatible or restrictive commitments Part C: Financial provisions II.18. Reporting II.19. Eligible costs II.20. Cost models II.21. Justification and reimbursements of eligible costs II.22. General provisions on payments II.23. Reimbursement to the Commission II.24. Controls and audits II.25. Compensatory measures and penalties Specific provisions for the instrument (to be determined) 66 Annex 6 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT (example) PARTICIPATION IN A NETWORK OF EXCELLENCE This Memorandum of Agreement is jointly made by all legal representatives of the organizations hereafter listed, involved in the preparation of the Network of Excellence called [INSERT NAME] to be proposed under the 6th Framework Programme of the European Community. Organization legal name and registered address: [INSERT NAME AND ADDRESS] Partners in the Consortium [...] Organization legal name and registered address (one page per partner) [INSERT ABBREVIATION if relevant] [INSERT LEGAL NAME] [INSERT LEGAL ADDRESS] Depending on the context, the organizations listed above are individually called Party or jointly called Parties and, alternatively the Disclosing Party or the Receiving Party or together the Parties. The terms in italics have the same meaning as in the Model Contract of the European Commission, its annexes, the guidelines to proposers published by the European Commission and the Consortium Agreement under preparation. WHEREAS, the Parties intend to submit a competitive proposal for integrating knowledge and resources in the Network of Excellence called [INSERT NAME (ACRONYM)] which is meant to set up a Joint Programme of Activities between Parties in the framework of the Call identifier [INSERT NAME] and call title [INSERT NAME] WHEREAS it is necessary for the Parties to disclose to each other certain of their proprietary information pertaining to the Joint Programme of Activities for which all intellectual property rights, copyrights and ownership protection may be later claimed as Pre-existing Knowledge. WHEREAS the Parties intend to jointly establish the principles regarding the preparation of a proposal, the negotiation with the Commission and the preparation of the Consortium Agreement. NOW THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 67 CONFIDENTIALITY 1. The Parties agree to supply all necessary, relevant information for preparing the proposal. 2. The receiving Parties shall keep the information received from a disclosing Party confidential during and after the proposal preparation and use it strictly for the purpose of preparing the proposal. The obligation mentioned above shall not apply to any information which: a. was in the possession of the receiving Party prior to disclosure by the disclosing Party and which was not previously obtained, either directly or indirectly, from the disclosing Party under confidentiality restrictions; b. was as the time of its disclosure to the receiving Party, part of the public domain by publication or otherwise, or hereafter becomes generally available to the public through no act or failure of the receiving Party; c. was furnished to the receiving Party by any third Party as a matter of right without restriction on disclosure. 3. The receiving Party shall limit access to the disclosed information to personnel directly involved in the proposal preparation. 4. The Parties must disclose participation in any other projects within the same thematic priority of the 6th FP. 5. Nothing in this Memorandum of Agreement shall be construed as compelling a Party to disclose any Confidential Information to the others. 6. The Confidential Information, all copies thereof and all rights thereto, shall remain the exclusive property of the Disclosing Party. All Confidential Information, whether original or copies thereof, shall be promptly returned to the Disclosing Party on receipt of a written request of the Disclosing Party. 7. The Receiving Party undertakes during the term of this Memorandum of Agreement and for a period of 5 years after the date if its expiry or termination to take reasonable precautions to protect such Confidential Information. Such precautions shall be at least the same degree of care and precaution that the Receiving Parties customarily use to protect its own Confidential Information: 8. Nothing contained in this Memorandum of Agreement shall be construed as granting or conferring upon the Receiving Party, whether expressly or implicitly, any right by license or otherwise under any proprietary or statutory right of the Disclosing Party existing prior – to or coming into existence after – the effective date of this Memorandum of Agreement. 68 PROPOSAL PREPARATION 9. The Parties commit to inform the Coordinator of the Network of Excellence [INSERT NAME OR ACRONYM] in writing of their participation in any identical or similar competitive Network of Excellence or Integrated Project for the same call for proposals under [INSERT CALL TITLE and/or CALL IDENTIFIER] 10. Each Party shall, within its respective scope of supplies and services for the Network of Excellence [INSERT NAME OR ACRONYM], make all reasonable efforts to concur in a competitive proposal through the preparation of all needed documents. To support this goal, each Party shall support and assist the Coordinator in finalizing the proposal, in the form and according to the schedule necessary for the Coordinator to submit the proposal in due time to the Commission. The Parties shall provide the Coordinator with all pertinent technical and cost data, which they or a Party deem necessary for the preparation of the proposal as well as all technical support or such other support as may be mutually agreed upon. 11. The Coordinator shall not modify the technical and cost data supplied by the other Parties without their respective consent and shall make available to each Party a copy of all significant letters, e-mails, faxes or documents relating to the proposal sent to – or received from the Commission before and after the submission of the proposal. 12. Each Party is fully aware that the financial contribution of the Commission is under a cost share basis and thus covers only a part of the expenses that have to be made for implementing the Network of Excellence [INSERT NAME OR ACRONYM]. Each Party will find and identify its own resources to cover the non-funded part of the expenses and will respectively bear its own costs involved in the preparation of the proposal. 13. In the course of the proposal preparation period, procedure, management rules and quality control to be used will be the ones prevailing in the activity sector. CONTRIBUTION TO THE PROPOSAL 14. Partners declare that they will contribute and participate in the following Programme of Activities: Organization legal name and registered address (one page per partner): List of Programme of Activities: [summing up of WPs with tasks to be addressed] NEGOTIATION OF THE PROPOSAL 15. The Coordinator shall be responsible for the submission of the proposal and the conduct of the negotiations of the proposal with the Commission. Each Party shall be kept fully informed of the progress of any negotiations and, as far as its part of the work is concerned, shall attend and participate in the negotiations of the Contract upon request from the Coordinator. 69 15. The Coordinator shall copy to the Parties, all significant letters, e-mails, faxes or documents relating to the negotiations. The Coordinator shall actively keep each Contractor informed of all modifications relevant to its activities and provisional budget and shall not accept the said modifications without the prior written agreement of the Contractor until the signature of the Contract. PREPARATION OF A CONSORTIUM AGREEMENT 17. Each Party shall provide the Coordinator with all relevant information, which he/she deems necessary for the preparation of a Consortium Agreement, and at least: - the complete legal information on its organization, to which the Party may want to grant Access Rights to Knowledge generated by the project; - the resources the Party intends to allocate to its contribution to the Joint Programme of Activities defined in the Contract and its annexes; - the Pre-existing Know-How the Party wants to exclude from Access Rights; - the names of the researchers and doctoral students contributing to the Joint Programme of Activities defined in the Contract and its annexes; - the cost share model used by the Party; - the identity of the bank account of the Party. 18. The Parties commit to negotiate and to sign a Consortium Agreement with the intent to sign the Contract on the basis of the proposal furnished by the Coordinator. GENERAL PROVISIONS 19. This Memorandum of Agreement shall become effective when duly signed by the Parties and shall remain valid for twelve (12) months and shall then terminate unless it is renewed by mutual consent in writing. 20. If necessary for the purpose of preparing the proposal or during the negotiations with the Commission, the same Memorandum of Agreement may be extended to a new Party provided the said new Party is agreed upon by all the Parties having signed this Memorandum of Agreement. 21. Disputes that might arise concerning this Memorandum of Agreement shall be settled amicably. In case of disputes for which no amicable solution is possible, settlement will exclusively take place by the competent court of [INSERT NAME OF COUNTRY]. This Memorandum of Agreement and its effects are subject to and shall be construed and enforced in accordance with Belgian law. IN WITNESS THEREOF, the Parties have signed this Letter of Intent on the respective dates entered below. 70 SIGNATURE PAGE (one page per partner) LEGAL NAME OF ORGANIZATION: NAME AND POSITION OF THE SIGNATORY: DATE: SIGNATURE: SEAL/STAMP OF THE ORGANIZATION: 71
© Copyright 2024