A revised draft work programme HEALTH (dated 30 April 2008) is now available. Please contact Sacra Tomisawa (SBF) if you would like to have a look at it.
The work programme will probably be published in July 2008.
Friday, 9 May 2008
Thursday, 17 April 2008
International collaboration in FP7
With the start of FP7, there is a new instrument, the so-called Specific International Cooperation Actions - SICAs. The proposal template is identical to a STREP (ICT) or small and medium scaled focussed project (elsewhere). A SICA in fact just has a special eligibility criterion.
The special eligibility criterion for SICAs is that instead of the usual rule of at least three mutually independent partners from three different Member of Associated states, a SICA requires just two Member or Associate state partners, but then also two mutually-independent partners from two different countries in the region being targeted for international coop
Apart from these special SICA actions, partners from elsewhere in Europe or overseas can always participate in any other project, provided the minimum three EU/AS partners are in place. And if their country is listed in the Workprogramme as an International Cooperation Partner Country they are funded for their participation on exactly the same basis as an organisation in a Member state. (Organisations in non-listed overseas countries can exceptionally be funded if their participation is essential to the project - there is a section in the proposal Part B where they are invited to explain about this).
The special eligibility criterion for SICAs is that instead of the usual rule of at least three mutually independent partners from three different Member of Associated states, a SICA requires just two Member or Associate state partners, but then also two mutually-independent partners from two different countries in the region being targeted for international coop
Apart from these special SICA actions, partners from elsewhere in Europe or overseas can always participate in any other project, provided the minimum three EU/AS partners are in place. And if their country is listed in the Workprogramme as an International Cooperation Partner Country they are funded for their participation on exactly the same basis as an organisation in a Member state. (Organisations in non-listed overseas countries can exceptionally be funded if their participation is essential to the project - there is a section in the proposal Part B where they are invited to explain about this).
STREPs in ICT
Those of you who are involved in ICT and also other themes in FP7 will already be aware that there are differences in the definition of a Small and medium scale focused project (STREP) between the different themes in the programme.
Those themes which are managed by DG Research define Focused projects simply on budget. All Collaborative research projects can carry out a wide range of activities – R&D, Demonstration, Management and Other are the categories – and those below a certain level of funding are considered to be Focused projects, those above it are Large scale integrating projects.
DG INFSO, managing the ICT theme, chose to maintain that there is qualitative difference between IPs and STREPs, not merely a quantitative one. Specifically, STREPs are expected to be well-planned tightly-focused research or demonstration projects. The implication of this is that in ICT the main activities in a STREP can be just three – R&D, Demonstration and Management. So a
proposer who registers for an ICT call will find, when completing his A3 form for a STREP in the EPSS system, that only these three categories can be filled in.
Proposers in ICT who specifically plan to include other activities closely related to the research work of the project, such as protection of their IPR or dissemination of their results, can put these under the Management category (or if they wish to bear some of the cost themselves, under R&D). In themes other than ICT, these activities woud be funded as "other".
Those themes which are managed by DG Research define Focused projects simply on budget. All Collaborative research projects can carry out a wide range of activities – R&D, Demonstration, Management and Other are the categories – and those below a certain level of funding are considered to be Focused projects, those above it are Large scale integrating projects.
DG INFSO, managing the ICT theme, chose to maintain that there is qualitative difference between IPs and STREPs, not merely a quantitative one. Specifically, STREPs are expected to be well-planned tightly-focused research or demonstration projects. The implication of this is that in ICT the main activities in a STREP can be just three – R&D, Demonstration and Management. So a
proposer who registers for an ICT call will find, when completing his A3 form for a STREP in the EPSS system, that only these three categories can be filled in.
Proposers in ICT who specifically plan to include other activities closely related to the research work of the project, such as protection of their IPR or dissemination of their results, can put these under the Management category (or if they wish to bear some of the cost themselves, under R&D). In themes other than ICT, these activities woud be funded as "other".
Thursday, 17 January 2008
Highly recommended: The Finance helpdesk
We strongly recommend the Finance helpdesk, regularly informing about FP6 and FP7 financial issues. Recent publications concern for example:
- Recording Hours Guidelines for FP7 Projects
- Issues surrounding 60% Derogation Overhead Rate for SMEs
- List of documents required to be seen by Auditor
For more information and registration please refer to the Finance helpdesk.
- Recording Hours Guidelines for FP7 Projects
- Issues surrounding 60% Derogation Overhead Rate for SMEs
- List of documents required to be seen by Auditor
For more information and registration please refer to the Finance helpdesk.
ICT call 3 event at EPFL
Euresearch Lausanne and SCIPROM co-organise an info event on the FP7 ICT call 3 taking place at EPFL on 22 Jan 2008.
Patrick Furrer, the National Contact Point for ICT will explain the content of this call and provide us with the latest information from the European Commission.
Professor Adrian Ionescu will analyse the evaluation process of the Commission with emphasis on the most important points to be considered for writing a successful proposal.
For more detailed information please refer to the Euresearch site. Participation is free of charge but we kindly ask you to register beforehand.
Patrick Furrer, the National Contact Point for ICT will explain the content of this call and provide us with the latest information from the European Commission.
Professor Adrian Ionescu will analyse the evaluation process of the Commission with emphasis on the most important points to be considered for writing a successful proposal.
For more detailed information please refer to the Euresearch site. Participation is free of charge but we kindly ask you to register beforehand.
Monday, 14 January 2008
Meeus - a self-help resource for the FP7 user community
Recently, a new service - Meeus - was created by the originators of the DESCA consortium agreement (www.desca-FP7.eu). It is intended as a self-help resource for the FP7 user community. It intends to give answers to difficult questions about FP7 from other FP7 users.
In general, answers are of high and will only improve with an increasing number of users.
In general, answers are of high and will only improve with an increasing number of users.
Auditors question Commission's evaluation of research funding programmes
The EU Research and Technological Development (RTD) framework programmes have been evaluated by the European Court of Auditors.
'Poorly defined programme objectives and weak performance measurement undermined effective monitoring and evaluation,' said the Court of Auditors in a statement. 'The absence of a comprehensive evaluation strategy, agreed between the Research Directorates-General implementing the framework programmes, resulted in inconsistent approaches between the different Commission services,' states the report.
Source: Cordis
The full report can be found here:
http://eca.europa.eu/portal/pls/portal/docs/1/651520.PDF
'Poorly defined programme objectives and weak performance measurement undermined effective monitoring and evaluation,' said the Court of Auditors in a statement. 'The absence of a comprehensive evaluation strategy, agreed between the Research Directorates-General implementing the framework programmes, resulted in inconsistent approaches between the different Commission services,' states the report.
Source: Cordis
The full report can be found here:
http://eca.europa.eu/portal/pls/portal/docs/1/651520.PDF
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)