framework programme 7 overview

Framework Programme 7

Overview

Marko Grobelnik

Jozef Stefan Institute(adapted presentation from EC +

some slides of my own)

WYS-CEC Workshop, Jožef Stefan Institute, Ljubljana, 16 Feb 2007

Overview

Framework Programme,Specific Programmes

Work Programme

Calls

Proposal Writing

Evaluation of proposals

“Rules and Funding Schemes”

Context

R&D Expenditureas % of GDP

Source: Eurostathttp://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-NS-05-002/EN/KS-NS-05-002-EN.PDF

0.33

0.97

1.11

1.31

1.35

1.87

1.93

1.99

2.19

2.50

2.68

2.76

3.15

3.51

4.27

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

Cyprus

Hungary

Spain

China

Czech Republic

UK

EU25

EU15

France

Germany

Korea

US

Japan

Finland

Sweden

• Other regions spend more on R&D than Europe• Large differences within Europe

R&D expenditure by industry

Source: Financial Times, 21 March 2005

• EU’s R&D by businesses• Top 50 spenders in the world

ICT

ICT R&D expenditure

• Europe is spending less than other regions in ICT R&D

• Public ICT Spending is Fragmented across Europe

Framework Programmes

29.2

93.3

48.8

European Union USA Japan

0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 0.8% 1.0% 1.2%

France

Germany

United Kingdom

Spain

The Netherlands

Sweden

Finland

European Union

United States

Japan

Annual ICT R&D Expenditure (% GDP)Comparative spending on ICT R&D in 2000

(Billion Euro)

ICT

Budgets of the EU Framework Programmes (1984-2013)

NB: Budgets in current prices

Source: Annual Report 2003, plus FP7 revised proposal

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012

€ mi l l i on

Overview


Work Programme

Calls

Proposal Writing



Context

InternationalCo-operation

Science in Society

Research Potential

Regions of Know-ledge

Research for the benefit of SMEs

ResearchInfrastruc-tures

CAPACITIES

Marie Curie ActionsPEOPLE

European Research CouncilIDEAS

9. S

ecu

rity &

Space

8. S

ocio

-eco

nom

ic R

ese

arch

7. T

ransp

ort

6. E

nviro

nm

ent

5. E

nerg

y

4. N

ano, M

ate

rials,

Pro

ductio

n T

ech

n.

3. IC

T

2. Fo

od, A

gricu

lture

B

iote

chnolo

gy

1. H

ealth

CO

OPE

RA

TIO

N

7th Framework Programme (2007-2013)

http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/

€ 32 B

€ 7.5 B

€ 4.7 B

€ 4.2 B

FP7 2007-2013 ‘Cooperation’ budget

I. Cooperation

Budget (€ million,

current prices)

1. Health 6 1002. Food, agriculture and biotechnology 1 9353. Information and communication technologies 9 0504. Nanotechnologies, materials and

production 3 475

5. Energy 2 3506. Environment 1 8907. Transport 4 1608. Socio-economic research 6239. Security and space 2 830Total 32 413

* Not including non-nuclear activities of the Joint Research Centre: €1 751 million

*

Ideas – Frontier Research

• Key driver to innovation and economic performance

• European Research Council (ERC)– Autonomous scientific governance (Scientific

Council)

• Support investigator-driven frontier research over all areas of research– Support projects of individual teams– Excellence as sole criterion

• European added-value through competition at European level

• Budget ~ €1bn p.a. (2007-2013 ~ €7.46)

People – Marie Curie Actions

• Initial training of researchers– Marie Curie Networks

• Life-long training and career development– Individual Fellowships– Co-financing of regional/national/international programmes

• Industry-academia pathways and partnerships– Industry-Academia Knowledge–sharing Scheme*

• International dimension– Outgoing & Incoming International Fellowships– International Cooperation Scheme– Reintegration grants; – Support to researcher ‘diasporas’

• Specific actions– Mobility and career enhancement actions– Excellence awards

Capacities – Research Capacity

• Research infrastructures• Research for the benefit of SMEs• Regions of Knowledge• Research Potential• Science in Society• Coherent development of policies• Activities of International Cooperation

Overview


Work Programme

Calls

Proposal Writing



Context

Terminology changes

FP6 FP7

Contract Grant Agreement

Contractor Beneficiary

Proposer Applicant

Instrument Funding scheme

Financial Guidelines

Financial Rules

INCO ICPC

Audit Certificates Certificate on the financial statements

Types of projects – instruments

5 “instruments”

• Collaborative Projects– Small or medium scale focused research

actions (“STREP”)– Large Scale Integrating Projects (“IP”)

• Networks of Excellence (“NoE”)• Coordination and Support Actions

– Coordinating or networking actions (“CA”)– Support Actions (“SSA”)

ICT

Classification of the instruments

Instrument Purpose Primary deliverable

Scale Funding

IP Objective-driven research

Knowledge Med-high 50-75-100%

NoE Tackle fragmentation

Structuring Med-high 100%

STREP Research Knowledge Low-med 50-75-100%

CA Coordination Coordination Low-med 100%

SA Support Support Low-med 100%

Collaborative Projects –Focused projects (STREP)

Experience of STREPs in FP6 • Purpose: Objective driven research more limited in

scope than an IP• Target audience: Industry incl. SMEs, research

institutes, universities

• Typical duration: 18-36 months• Optimum consortium: 6-15 participants• Total EU contribution: €0.8 - 3 m (average

€1.9m)

• Fixed workplan and fixed partnership for duration

Networks of excellence (NoE)

Experience of NoEs in FP6 • Purpose: Durable integration of participants’ research

activities• Target audience: research institutions, universities, mainly

indirectly: industry – trough governing boards etc

• Typical duration: 48-60 months (but indefinite integration!)

• Optimum consortium: 6-12 participants• Total EU contribution: €4-15m (average around €7m)

• Flexibility in implementation: – Update of workplan– Possibility to add participants through competitive calls

Coordination or Networking actions (CA)

Experience of CAs in FP6• Purpose: Co-ordination of several research activities• Target Audience: Research institutions, universities,

industry incl. SMEs

• Typical duration: 18-36 months• Optimum consortium: 13-26 participants• Total EU contribution: €0.5-1.8m (average €1m)

• Fixed overall workplan and partnership for the duration

Collaborative Projects –Integrating Projects (IP)

Experience of IPs in FP6• Purpose: Ambitious objective driven research with a

‘programme approach’• Target audience: Industry (incl. SMEs), research

institutions, universities, and end-users

• Typical duration: 36-60 months• Optimum consortium: 10-20 participants• Total EU contribution: €4-25m (average €10m)

• Flexibility in implementation: – Update of workplan– Possibility for competitive calls for enlargement of

consortium

Support actions

Experience of SSAs in FP6 • Purpose: Support to programme implementation,

preparation of future actions, dissemination of results• Target audience: Research organisations, universities,

industry incl. SMEs

• Typical duration: 9-30 months• Optimum consortium: 1-15 participants• Total EU contribution: €0.03-1m (average €0.5m)

• Fixed overall workplan and partnership for the duration

Overview


Work Programme

Calls

Proposal Writing



Context

Cooperation Calls22 December 2006

Themes Budget (M€) Deadline

1. Health 628 19 April

2. Food, Agriculture and Fisheries and Biotechnology 192 2 May

3. Information and Communication Technologies 10190

8 MayFET Open: continuous

4. Nanosciences, Nanotechnologies, Materials and New Production Technologies IPsSTREPsCPs targeted to SMEsCSAs

200106

7515

4 May (4 Oct)4 May (13 Sept)4 May (4 Oct)4 June

5. Energy 109 + 128 3 May

6. Environment (including Climate Change) 200 2 May

7. Transport (including Aeronautics) Aeronautics and Air TransportSustainable Surface TransportHorizontal activities

153 + 4153 + 60

12

3 May

8. Socioeconomic Sciences and the Humanities 59 10 May

9. Space 35 19 June

10. Security 80 31 May

ERANET 29 31 July

Coordination and cooperation in context of ERA 0.2 31 May

http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/dc/index.cfm


Science in Society

Research Potential




CAPACITIES



IDEAS Calls22 December 2006

Starting Independent Researcher Grant: € 290 M, 25 April (17 Sept)



Science in Society

Research Potential




CAPACITIES



People Calls22 December 2006

Initial Training Networks: € 240 M, 7 May (25 Sept)

European Reintegration Grants: € 9.5 M, 25 April (17 Oct)

International Reintegration Grants: € 14.5 M, 25 April (17 Oct)

Researchers' night: € 3 M, 3 April

Marie Curie Awards: € 0.25 M, 26 April



Science in Society

Research Potential




CAPACITIES

Capacities Calls22 December 2006

Research Infrastructures: € 164 M, 2 May

Analysis and integration of research actors: € 8.8 M, 24 April

Facilitating emergence of new clusters: € 0.8 M, 24 April

Trans-national co-operation among NCPs: € 0.4 M, 24 April

Research for SMEs: € 100 M, 4 Sept

Research for SME Associations: € 10 M, 1 June (28 Nov)

Coordination and Support Actions: € 2 M, 10 May


Capacities Calls22 December 2006

Activities of International Cooperation INCO-NET: € 17 M, 2 May

Trans-national co-operation among NCPs: € 0.37 M, 2 May

Unlocking and developing the research potential in the EU´s convergence regions and outermost regions: € 23.5 M, 24 April

Providing evaluation facilities for research organisation in the EU´s convergence regions and outermost regions: € 1 M, 24 April

International Co-operation: € 8 M, 24 April

Trans-national co-operation among NCPs: € 0.5 M, 24 April

Unlocking and developing the research potential in the EU´s convergence regions and outermost regions: € 23.5 M, 24 April

Science in Society: € 22 M, 23 May


Science in Society

Research Potential




CAPACITIES


Overview


Work Programme

Calls

Proposal Writing



Context

Proposal

Individual evaluation

Consensus

Panel review

Consultation of programme committee (if required)

Commission funding and/or rejection decision

with hearing(optional)

Thresholds

Eligibility

Negotiation

Commission ranking

Commission rejection decision

Ethical Review

(if needed)

Security Scrutiny

(if needed)

Applicants informed of results of expert evaluation*

• invitation to submit second-stage

proposal, when applicable

Submission and evaluation in

FP7

Applicants informed of Commission decision

Evaluation criteria scoring

• Scale of 1-5 (and 0)• Criterion threshold 3/5• Overall threshold 10/15

• Post-evaluation review for any selected proposals which have ethical issues

ICT

FP7 has three main evaluation criteria

• 1. Scientific and technical quality– Soundness of concept, and quality of objectives

• 2. Implementation– Appropriateness of the management– Quality and relevant experience of the individual

participants

• 3. Impact– Contribution at the European or international level

to the expected impacts listed in the workprogramme under the relevant activity

Proposal preparation

What helps when preparing proposal?

• Clear vision created and led by a small number of people – core group (no anarchy!)

• To have direct connection and regular communication with responsible Brussels officers (to ask them about all the details)– …officers are usually friendly and responsive, but one

needs to contact them• Protocol: weekly phone conferences, monthly

physical meetings, one or two check with officers• Clear commitments and responsibilities (constant

contact between the partners)• Efficient communication between project partners

– …long and ineffective communication can make partners tired and uninterested

Problems (1)

• No vision (vision is just “we want that project” or “we want money from EU”)

• Project idea has no potential (it is interesting just for the proposer)

• Academics would like to do just basic science and consider industrial partners as nuisance

• Industrial partners would like to get easy money to develop their product (having almost no research component)

• Project partners are friends instead of partners (...if you don’t take him, he/she is offended, if you take him the project gets worse)

Problems (2)

• Coordination of proposal preparation is to anarchic (everybody is able to push his own idea, coordinator has no authority or not enough knowledge)

• Forgetting small things: gender balance, having SMEs (large companies like to forget about a small fish), EU contribution, ...

• Ignoring criteria for project evaluation• Waiting with the proposal writing till the last

moment before the submission (...project preparation becomes collecting of text pieces in panic and putting them together).

Problems (3)

• Final consistency check need – evaluators notice inconsistencies and imbalances very fast – …this is evaluator’s main tool to find difficulties

• Proposal writing doesn’t take into account that evaluators are usually just well informed technicians and not experts for that particular area– …use clear and common language whenever

possible

• Proposal message is spread around the proposal document and concentrated at one clearly designated place

Problems (4)

• When preparing proposal be aware of the conditions how the proposal will be evaluated:– …evaluators have just a few hours per proposal– …all the proposals seem to evaluators after couple

of days very similar to each other – small things decide

– …if you pre-communicated with the Commission officers, the officer at the consensus meeting can be your proposal’s ally

– …you can be unlucky with the selection of the evaluators:

• they can be either too academic or to technical or too tired or too negative or too perfectionist, …

• ...try to put into the proposal some cookies for each one of those psychological profiles

Problems (5) ...being late just for a couple of hours or minutes

Dear partners,after busy weeks working on the XXX proposal and with some of youin parallel on the YYY proposal I have to admit that I haveunderestimated the work and organisational efforts.At the end we missed the deadline only by some hours after working also the last night very hard without stop.I take the responsibility for the bad situation.Many thanks to you all for your engagement especially ... We have become a good team and I hope this will enable us to use theproposal for the next call ...

To conclude …Calls for Proposals in 2007

Information

• EU research: http://ec.europa.eu/research

• Seventh Framework Programme: http://ec.europa.eu/research/fp7

• Information on research programmes and projects: http://cordis.europa.eu/

• RTD info magazine: http://ec.europa.eu/research/rtdinfo/

• Information requests: http://ec.europa.eu/research/enquiries/

• Email:<first name>.<last name>@ec.europa.eu

http://ec.europa.eu/research

http://ec.europa.eu/research/fp7

http://cordis.europa.eu/

http://ec.europa.eu/research/rtdinfo/

http://ec.europa.eu/research/enquiries/

framework programme 7 overview

Documents