Thursday, January 19, 2012


date: Wed Nov 20 21:56:19 2002
from: Mike Hulme <>
subject: Re: Feedback from Programe Committee and NoE news
to: "Ruth Boumphrey" <>

Thanks for this. Two questions:
- surely only 170/600 (less than 30%) is being spent on the 1st call, not half as you
- do you know why the WP says *either* Integrated Projects or Networks of Excellence are
asked for, rather than the community being steered in one or other direction? Surely the
Commission should indicate which it is they are after in the 1st call? Any thoughts on
At 17:11 18/11/02 +0000, you wrote:

Dear all:
Latest on FP6
Many thanks for your inputs to the final negotiations for the 1st call workplan for FP6
sub theme Global Change and Ecosystems (GCE). The 1st call work plan text is now close
to finalisation (see attached for CONFIDENTIAL most up to date version) and only awaits
the comments of DG Environment before ratification.
The first call is to go out on December 17th, with an expected closing date of 8th April
2003. The closing dates for the thematic priorities have been staggered - so GMES is
expecting to close in mid March, and the 8th priority (which has substantial
environmental sciences content) will close in early May.
Approximately half the available budget will be spent on the 1st call. The programme
committee will be developing the 2nd call in February/ March 2003 and this 2nd call is
expected to go out around July with a closing date around October.
New thinking on networks of excellence
Those of you who are proposing to establish networks of excellence for FP6 should note
the latest intelligence from UKRO re elligible funding. This is in the attached update.
Please ring me if you would like to discuss any of the above, or if you would like more
detailed feedback on the programme committee discussions.
Dr Ruth Boumphrey
Head of International
Natural Environment Research Council
Planning and Communications Directorate
Polaris House
North Star Avenue
tel: 44 (0) 1793 - 411740
Received: from
( [])
by; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 16:38:21 +0000
Received: from (unverified) by
(Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.10) with ESMTP id
<> for <>;
Fri, 15 Nov 2002 16:35:20 +0000
Received: from ( [])
by (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id gAFGakV08057
for <>; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 16:36:46 GMT
Received: by ex3beimcoims01 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
id <W9VN60G3>; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 16:59:08 +0100
Message-ID: <B35F876EF06DD411B68D00D0B76DEB3B0728DF7A@EX2BEBREYMBX03>
Subject: REVISION 5 of draft text for WP
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 16:58:53 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Dear Committee Members,
As stated in the programme Committee meeting we forward to you the text
which was the basis for the opinion of 12 November 2002.
There is an exception, I want to draw your attention to: In agreement with
our hierarchy and the Cabinet the footnote in III.1.4 "ocean drilling
activities are not covered; the exploitation of sub-sea floor data is
however included in the relevant topics of this workprogramme" will not be
included in the text; the parenthesis excluding ocean drilling technologies
remains cancelled. This should help to avoid any ambiguity. I am confident
this will find your support.
We still do not have all reactions from the inter-service consultation. For
this reason we may eventually come back to you beginning of next week with
further comments.
Have a nice weekend.
Christian Patermann
<<WP_DRAFT_008_REV 5 14-11-2003_highlighted.pdf>>
Dr. Marco Weydert
European Commission
DG RTD-Environment
Unit I1-Policy Aspects and Strategies for Sustainable Development
from 15 November: DG RTD - Structuring the European Research Area
Unit B2: Strenghening research cooperation and Europe's science base SDME
LUX46 1/93
B-1049 Bruxelles
tel : 0032-2-296.2145
fax :0032-2-296.3024
email :
tel.: 0032-2-299.2390
Commission rules request that the following note be sent with emails:
"The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may not in any
circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European
Received: from
by; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 17:42:15 +0000
Received: from (unverified) by
(Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.10) with ESMTP id
Fri, 15 Nov 2002 17:45:13 +0000
Received: from ( [])
by (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id gAFHfcV12042;
Fri, 15 Nov 2002 17:41:38 GMT
Received: from ([]
by with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #3)
id 18CkOq-0003hR-04; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 17:37:00 +0000
Received: from localhost ([]
by with esmtp (Exim 3.31 #1)
id 18CkOr-000it7-00; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 17:37:02 +0000
Received: from ([])
by with esmtp (Exim 3.31 #1)
id 18CkOT-000it2-00
for; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 17:36:37 +0000
Received: from [] (
by with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #3)
id 18CkMb-0003ZC-04
for; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 17:34:41 +0000
Received: from ([]) by
with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13)
id W6PQYF27; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 17:34:43 -0000
Received: by with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
id <W6W3MWGP>; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 17:34:42 -0000
Message-ID: <>
From: "ukro ukro (UKRO)" <>
To: "elos (Mailman List)" <>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 17:34:42 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain;
X-ECS-MailScanner-BBSRC: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
Subject: [Elos] FS02:36 UKRO - FP SPOTLIGHT (15 November 2002)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.5
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <[1]>
List-Post: <[2]>
List-Subscribe: <[3]>,
List-Id: mailing list for UKRO publications (european liason officers at universities
and research councils) <>
List-Unsubscribe: <[5]>,
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by id
FS02:36 UKRO - FP SPOTLIGHT (15 November 2002)
Developments in the EU's RTD Framework Programme
1. European Research 2002 - Launch of FP6
2. Proposal Writing for Researchers - Presentations Available
3. Networks of Excellence - Activities and Funding
4. FP6 Application Process - Draft Administrative Forms
1. European Research 2002 - Launch of FP6
Over 8000 people are believed to have attended the launch conference for the 6th
Framework Programme, held in Brussels from the 11th to the 13th of November. Although a
significant number of the formal sessions were devoted to policy statements and
formulation, with little new practical information on the implementation of the Thematic
Priorities, the general feeling among UKRO subscribers met during the conference was
that the conference was a success and particularly useful in terms of networking
(despite the huge number of attendees). Indeed, it was good to see so many of you at the
IGLO stand.
The main issue of discussion (and confusion) was a crucially changed emphasis on the
funding for Networks of Excellence (see article below), which - together with the issue
of cost models for institutions in receipt of public funding (to be covered in an
article in the next Spotlight)- figured heavily in informal conversations between ELOs
and UKRO European Advisors.
A number of the most useful presentations by Commission officials are now also available
from the conference web site at
2. Proposal Writing for Researchers - Presentations Available
The presentations to be used in UKRO's "Proposal Writing for Researchers" courses, which
will run from the 18th to the 25th of November, are now available on the UKRO web site.
These presentations, which will be sent by CRAC to all registered participants, now
incorporate all the new information that has become available in the weeks since the
Proposal Writing for ELOs which was held in London on the 11th October.
The presentations are available (in PDF format) at
3. Networks of Excellence - Activities and Funding
Following a rather confusing series of statements produced at the FP6 Launch Conference,
UKRO has managed to clarify with the Commission the concepts surrounding funding for
Networks of Excellence (NoE). The confusion follows from very recent developments in the
Commission's understanding of what constitutes integration. A re-definition which,
crucially, is now much more open and responsive to the participants needs than has ever
been the case in previous framework programmes.
The key point is that the funding is NOT tied to the activities proposed in the Joint
Programme of Activities (JPA), but is only intended as an incentive for the partners
undertaking this integration. There are no 'eligible activities' to which a network is
restricted and which can or cannot be funded from the grant to integration.
A consortium is expected to submit a JPA which includes a mix of:
'Integrating' activities (e.g., co-ordinated research programming, common research tools
and platforms, exchanges of personnel),
spreading of excellence activities (e.g. training researchers and other key staff,
public awareness, technology transfer)
research activities (i.e., the full spectrum of research activities which the partners
intend to undertake jointly)
This JPA is then evaluated in terms of its effectiveness in delivering deep and
long-lasting "structural change" in the research landscape in Europe.
UKRO understand that this could be evaluated both in terms of a high degree of
integration in a (limited) number of research groups, as well as the engagement of a
wider set of researchers in the activities led by this group (without this 'second tier'
necessarily aiming for full integration). It is up to the proposers to define the
architecture of the NoE in terms of the different levels of integration that will be
reached by the different participants. Similarly, it will be the proposers'
responsibility to make it clear to the evaluation panel the significance of the
'structural change' achieved through the architecture proposed as well as the indicators
that are to be used to measure the progress of this integration.
In theory, therefore, it would be possible for a network of research groups in HEIs
across Europe to submit a proposal for a NoE with a JPA which consisted entirely of
research activities. The important difference with an Integrated Project is that this
research programme would NOT be evaluated on the quality of the science and the
deliverables but, instead, would be evaluated primarily in terms of its ability to
effect deep and long-lasting "structural change" in the European research landscape. In
practice, however, it is unlikely that a NoE proposal which consisted primarily of
research activities would be able to convince the evaluators of its ability to generate
the integration that the Commission is looking for.
Those proposals which are successfully evaluated will then receive a grant as an
incentive to carry out the activities that are proposed in the JPA. As is now well
known, the Commission will calculate the level of this incentive on the basis of a
headcount of the number of researchers with significant engagement in the activities
proposed in the JPA, adjusted to take into account the different nature of the research
and the evaluator's assessment of the value of the research activities integrated in the
JPA (i.e., the 25% of value rule).
The money, however, is not a grant to the activities but an incentive, and need not
necessarily be used to fund the activities included in the plan. It is this lack of
direct connection between the grant to integration and the JPA which marks the most
significant difference between NoE and any other instrument the Commission has proposed
in the Framework Programme.
Research, therefore, IS now an 'eligible' activity in NoE, as long as these activities
are included in the JPA and contribute to the integration of participants. Indeed, the
money can be used entirely to fund research activities (or any other activity), as long
as the JPA is delivered as planned and on schedule. The prudent institution will always
use the money to fund JPA activities, but the flexibility is there for the grant to be
used for other purposes if the integration process requires it.
A further development relates also to the financial reporting on the use of the grant.
The grant awarded to the network can be paid to the consortium only to the extent that
the payments are less than the costs incurred by the consortium in implementing the
joint programme of activities. Two key notions need to be kept in mind:
* First, the money cannot be used to fund ineligible costs (e.g., taxes, profits,
interests, etc.)
* The justification of the costs incurred will probably be done on the basis of the
participating institution's cost model. Therefore, the financial statements of
additional cost partners cannot include staff (and other costs) funded through recurrent
funding or overheads of more than 20%.
This has significant implications for the general understanding that networks are
funded at 100%, as the unrelated nature of the grant and the JPA makes this distinction
irrelevant. However, significant elements of the model contract for NoE are still to be
negotiated. UKRO will make more information available as soon as this develops
None Available
4. FP6 Application Process - Draft Administrative Forms
UKRO has received a copy of the draft administrative forms for Integrated Project
proposals (A1, A2 and A3). These are available, for information purposes, from the UKRO
web site. Please remember that these are drafts and should be used solely for internal
discussions, with the caveat that significant changes are possible over the next few
UKRO will keep subscribers informed of developments in these forms as and when these
take place.
The draft forms are available at
Commission press releases (reference 'IP/year 2 digits/number') can be obtained from
'RAPID' at: [10]
European documents (ISBNs) and Official Commission documents (reference 'Com (year 2
digits) number') are available from your local European Documentation Centre at:
[11] or from the
Stationery Office, Tel: 0870 6005522, [12]
Please note that FP Spotlights are emailed directly to European Liaison Officers only.
The ELO decides how to disseminate it within their institution. This information is
accessible on our web site at [13] (subscribers only).
INSTITUTION. No liability shall be incurred by UKRO for use of the information provided
in this publication.
Rue de la Loi 83,
B-1040 Brussels, Belgium
Tel.: 0032 2 230 5275 / 1535
Fax: 0032 2 230 4803
URL: [14]

No comments:

Post a Comment