A WAY TO BRUSSELS OR HOW TO WIN A E UROPEAN ECTIN is _n UMANITIES / / / / / / / / # s- k Edited by: OTO LUTHAR, LUCIJA MULEJ, MARTIN POGAČAR založba 1 r c A WAY TO BRUSSELS OR HOW TO WiN A EUROPEAN PROJECT iN HUMANiTiES: GENERAL iNFORMATiON ON FP7 WORK PROGRAMME © 2008, ZRC Publishing, ZRC SAZU Edited by Oto Luthar, Lucija Mulej and Martin Pogačar Design by Milojka Zalik Huzjan Copy Editing by Hannah K. Marshall Published by ZRC Publishing, ZRC SAZU, Ljubljana Printed by Collegium Graphicum d.o.o., Ljubljana Printrun 50 copies All Europa Media material published by permission. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. A WAY TO BRUSSELS OR HOW TO WIN A EUROPEAN PROJECT IN HUMANITIES GENERAL INFORMATION ON FP7 WORK PROGRAMME Edited by: Oto Luthar, Lucija Mulej, Martin Pogačar Ljubljana 2008 INTRODUCTION This book was conceived as a manual for our colleagues, researchers in humanities, who at the end of 2006 for the first time got a chance to design their own European project proposal. Direct access to the European funds was a fairly new opportunity for all of us and we embarked on this mission with great enthusiasm ... and a head full of questions and considerations. Before long it became rather clear that beginners need all the information they can get; that is, all there is. Therefore we set off to Brussels, Vienna, Linz, Styer, Budapest, Berlin, Torino, and Sofia. Some informants we visited in person, others we contacted via e-mail and eventually we managed to gather all the crucial information. The knowledge we acquired, turned out to be a considerable asset when we were preparing our own proposal. On the other hand, we constantly thought about our colleagues and their anxiety that can be caused by the labyrinth of instructions, rules, forms, examples of good practice, etc. - the things that might discourage a researcher from designing their own proposal or to positively answer the call for partnership. During the time when we were seeking answers, we sent one of our colleagues to Budapest to attend an interesting workshop on how to successfully apply for EU funding. The workshop equipped her with plenty of invaluable insight and information, inevitable when designing an FP7 project proposal. Therefore, we would like to thank Europa Media for letting us publish the advice, necessary steps and tips, presented at their workshop, and for the final review of the book. In short, we were driven to write this manual because we wished to present to our colleagues and their prospective international partners the FP7application as a realistic and viable opportunity for acquisition of research funds; that is, as a unique chance to expand the professional network internationally. If you find at least some support, guidance and encouragement in this book, we have reached our goal. http://www.eutrainingsite.net / and http://www.europamedia.org/about.html. For Slovenians Razlogov za to, da je priročnik v angleščini, je več. Prvi se gotovo skriva v dejstvu, da je tudi projektno vlogo potrebno oddati v angleščini. Torej, če bi besedilo prevajali, bi bodočim prijaviteljem iz Slovenije naložili dodatno delo. V trenutku, ko bi v slovenščini vlogo oblikovali, bi morali sami iskati ustrezne tehnične izraze (npr. audit, delivarable, kick-off meeting, etc.) in s tem izgubili dragoceni čas. Časa pa je pri tako zahtevnih prijavah vedno premalo. Mimogrede, to si velja še posebej dobro zapomniti. Drugič, partnerji, ki oblikujejo projektni predlog, nujno prihajajo vsaj iz štirih različnih držav in tudi če bi se med seboj uspeli hitreje sporazumeti ... jih na koncu znova čaka jezik prijave. In končno, ne smemo pozabiti, da se na jezik veže tudi določena logika razmišljanja in značilen način oblikovanja argumentov, kar bi pri končnem usklajevanju ne pomenilo zgolj prevajanja, temveč tudi nujno prilagajanje struktur in s tem dodatno izgubo časa. Sicer pa ima tovrstna jezikovna adaptacija lahko tudi pozitivne učinke. S stalnim razmišljanjem o tem, kako je kak fenomen, proces ali kulturno prakso mogoče misliti v drugem jeziku, lahko zvemo veliko o oblikovanju tega fenomena, procesa ali kulturne prakse v domačem okolju. Po drugi strani pa lahko s stalnim prevajanjem v tuj jezik (in nazaj) odločilno obogatimo slovenščino. Uredniki Ljubljana, 29. November 2007 table of contents INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................... 5 1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO WRITING AN FP7 PROJECT PROPOSAL....................11 Scope of work programme.....................................................................................................12 Cross-cutting Issues.........................................................................................................12 Dissemination and knowledge transfer....................................................................12 SME participation..............................................................................................................13 Ethical aspects....................................................................................................................13 Collaborative research.....................................................................................................14 International cooperation..............................................................................................15 Funding schemes........................................................................................................................15 Main funding schemes....................................................................................................16 I. Collaborative projects (CP).........................................................................................16 II. Networks of excellence...............................................................................................18 III. Coordination and support action..........................................................................18 IV. Specific support actions............................................................................................19 V: Special funding schemes...........................................................................................20 2. PROPOSAL PREPARATION........................................................................................................23 Advantages of EU projects ......................................................................................................23 Disadvantages of EU projects ................................................................................................23 Before starting the preparation.............................................................................................24 The most important documents of the application package ....................................25 Who can participate in FP7? ...................................................................................................27 The importance of the consortium's composition.........................................................27 How to build a consortium.....................................................................................................28 Consortium building and roles..............................................................................................30 What exactly is EPSS?................................................................................................................31 3. HOW TO WRITE AN FP7 PROPOSAL......................................................................................33 Administrative forms .................................................................................................................33 General information ..................................................................................................................33 Part A of the proposal ...............................................................................................................34 A1 form .................................................................................................................................34 A1 form - abstract.............................................................................................................34 A2 form.................................................................................................................................34 A3 form.................................................................................................................................35 Part B of the proposal................................................................................................................36 B1 - Scientific and technical quality...........................................................................37 B2 - Implementation.......................................................................................................39 B3 - Impact..........................................................................................................................41 B4 - Ethical issues.............................................................................................................42 B5 - Consideration of gender aspects.......................................................................42 4. FINANCIAL ISSUES......................................................................................................................43 Who is eligible for FP7 funding?............................................................................................43 Forms of financial contribution from EC............................................................................43 Reimbursement of eligible costs.................................................................................43 Flat rates for indirect costs.............................................................................................44 Maximum funding rates of the certain activities...................................................45 Cost categories...................................................................................................................45 Risk avoidance mechanism ("Guarantee fund").....................................................45 Proposal evaluation - typical failure....................................................................................47 5. EVALUATION AND NEGOTIATION..........................................................................................48 Acknowledgement of receipt (stage 1)..............................................................................48 Eligibility check (stage 2).........................................................................................................49 Individual evaluation (stage 3)..............................................................................................49 Evaluation criteria.............................................................................................................49 Evaluators.............................................................................................................................50 Proposal marking..............................................................................................................50 Thresholds...........................................................................................................................51 Panel meeting (stage 5)............................................................................................................51 Feedback to proposers.............................................................................................................51 Two-stage submission and evaluation procedure.........................................................52 Finalisation of the evaluation ranking by the Commission.........................................52 Ranked list: Commission ranked list...........................................................................52 Reserve list: Commission reserve list.........................................................................53 Rejection: Commission rejection decisions.............................................................53 Contract negotiation.................................................................................................................54 Grant agreement preparation forms...................................................................................55 Description of work....................................................................................................................56 The role of the coordinator............................................................................................56 Consortium agreement...................................................................................................56 Selection of proposals...............................................................................................................57 6. MODEL CONTRACT....................................................................................................................58 7. PROJECT MANAGEMENT..........................................................................................................59 The management structure of the project........................................................................59 So what do we need to avoid these problems?...............................................................60 General advice in intercultural communication..............................................................63 Consortium agreement and IPR (Intellectual Property Rights)..................................64 The start of the project....................................................................................................64 Content of the EC contract............................................................................................64 Consortium agreement...................................................................................................65 IPR issues..............................................................................................................................66 Protection of foreground...............................................................................................67 Dissemination (including publications).............................................................................68 8. THE KICK-OFF MEETING............................................................................................................69 Aims of the kick-off meeting..................................................................................................69 Kick-off meeting agenda..........................................................................................................69 9. REPORTING AND DELIVERABLES...........................................................................................72 Reporting.......................................................................................................................................72 Accounting system.....................................................................................................................73 Activity report: Periodic and final reports................................................................76 Periodic activity (technical) report..............................................................................76 Technical report.................................................................................................................77 Deliverable....................................................................................................................................77 Project closure - Final reporting............................................................................................77 Management report.........................................................................................................78 Financial report..................................................................................................................79 The cost statements.........................................................................................................79 Eligibility of expenditure................................................................................................80 Report on the distribution of the Community contribution.............................81 Dissemination..............................................................................................................................81 Making an effective Dissemination Plan..................................................................82 Dissemination of good practices.................................................................................82 Monitoring and evaluating.....................................................................................................83 The management system........................................................................................................85 Monitoring...........................................................................................................................85 Review...................................................................................................................................86 Certificate on financial statements.......................................................................................87 EC audit: Monitoring by the Commission - regular controls............................89 Commission Services Assess.........................................................................................90 10. WRITING A PROPOSAL - EUMEMO: Crucial phases........................................................92 EUMEMO - Project proposal....................................................................................................95 1. Scientific quality relevant to the topics addressed by the call..............................97 1.1 Concept and objectives...........................................................................................97 1.1.1 Project outline..........................................................................................................98 1.1.2 Elaboration................................................................................................................99 1.2 Progress beyond the state-of-the-art..............................................................101 1.3 Scientific methodology and associated work plan.....................................101 2. Implementation...................................................................................................................107 2.1 Management structure and procedures.........................................................107 2.2 Individual participants..........................................................................................108 2.3 Consortium as a whole..........................................................................................108 2.4 Resources to be committed................................................................................108 3. Impact.....................................................................................................................................110 3.1 Expected impacts listed in the work programme.......................................110 3.2 Dissemination and exploitation of project results, and management of intellectual property....................................................................111 4. Ethical Issues.........................................................................................................................113 5. Consideration of gender aspects.............................................................................114 References .....................................................................................................................................115 GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO WRITING AN FP7 PROJECT PROPOSAL Work programme of the 7th Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities was adopted by the Commission with the assistance of the Programme Committee, following the adoption of the Specific Programmes 'Cooperation,'Ideas,'People' and 'Capacities'. This work programme provides additional detail of the implementation of the Specific Programme and information regarding the priorities, objectives and policy relevance of the research topics. The Cooperation work programme is structured around 10 chapters, which set out the implementation of research Themes. A range of issues relevant for the Cooperation Work Programme as a whole are set out in Annexes 1-4. In general, each chapter is self-standing; however, applicants are advised to read this general introduction and the Annexes, in addition to the chapter(s) containing the research Theme(s) of interest. In preparing this work programme, the Commission has relied on advice from a wide range of consultants, including the European Technology Platforms2 and a series of specialist advisory groups.3 The European Technology Platforms provide a framework for stakeholders led by industry, to define research and development priorities, time frames, and action plans on a number of strategically important issues where achieving Europe's future growth, competitiveness and sustainability objectives is dependent upon major research and technological advances in the medium to long term. The advisory groups are groups of independent, high-level, experts, who have been set up by the Commission to advise on the implementation of Community research policy in each of the 10 research Themes contained in this work programme. The experts were chosen based on their knowledge, skills, and significant experience in the field of research and aligned issues covered by the Themes. More information on the members and the work of the advisory groups as well as the European Technology Platforms can be found on the Europa: (http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/programmes/index_en.htm) and CORDIS: (http://cordis.europa.eu/en/home.html). In the implementation of the Cooperation Specific Programme, attention is also paid to the working conditions, the transparency of the recruitment processes, and the career development of the researchers recruited on funded projects and programmes. A reference framework is offered by the Commission Recommendation on the European Charter for Researchers and on a Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers (11 March 2005). 2 http://cordis.europa.eu/technology-platforms/home_en.html 3 http://ec.europa.eu/research/fp7/advisory_en.html SCOPE OF WORK PROGRAMME The scope of this work programme corresponds to that defined in the Cooperation Specific Programme. The calls for proposals planned within this work programme are those that were launched in 2007. In addition, each of the Themes indicates potential topics for future calls. Cross-cutting issues Several issues are of great importance to all Themes of the Cooperation Programme. These are addressed in the present guide and, as appropriate, elaborated further in the Themes and/or in the Annexes. The Cooperation Programme will contribute towards promoting growth, sustainable development, and environmental protection, including addressing the problem of climate change. Cross-thematic and pluridisciplinary research areas are included in this work programme, paying particular attention to key scientific areas, such as, energy efficiency, marine sciences, and technologies. Such cross-thematic research areas are considered at the topic level, either by a centre of gravity approach with close cooperation of the Themes involved and with the topic presented in the most relevant Theme, or by consideration of the specific topic by both Themes. In certain fields of research, where it is clear that proposals will always contain a high proportion of interest for one of more Themes, there is the potential for joint, and/or coordinated, calls for proposals between one or more Themes to allow for a more focussed approach to such Cross-thematic or pluridisciplinary research areas. The Cooperation Programme has been designed to be responsive to the changing and evolving research needs of European industry and policy makers. Each Theme includes a range of different research topics, including those relevant to industrial needs, such as those identified in the strategic research agenda for the Technology Platforms, and topics relevant to the formulation, implementation and assessment of EU policies and regulations. In addition, 'emerging' research needs are incorporated through more 'bottom-up' research topics. There is also provision for the inclusion of research topics related to 'unforeseen policy needs, which may require a quick reaction. Dissemination and knowledge transfer FP7 aims to develop a better relationship between scientists and European citizens. With this aim in mind, the work programme will encourage activities to promote greater public engagement and dialogue in order to involve citizens and civil society organisations in research and science policy. The pursuit of scientific knowledge and its technical application towards society requires the talent, perspectives, and insight that can only be assured by increasing diversity in the research workforce. Therefore, a balanced representation of women and men at all levels in research projects is encouraged. When human beings are involved as users, gender differences may exist. These will be addressed as an integral part of the research to ensure the highest level of scientific quality. With the aim of encouraging young people's interest in science and science studies, account will be taken of the possible relevance of research results for the purposes of science education. Where appropriate, communication and dissemination strategies will address the wider audience of policy-makers, the media and the general public (including young people), in order to promote increased understanding between the scientific world and society at large. In order to strengthen the diffusion and use of the output of EU research, the dissemination of knowledge and transfer of results, including to policy makers, will be supported in the Themes. In addition, CORDIS, a portal for 'Community Research and Development Information Service; will provide services to foster the dissemination of knowledge and the exploitation of research results. The CORDIS portal will also provide applicants with full details of the calls for proposals open under this work programme, together with all of the documentation necessary to make an application. Objectives related to gender, communication and dissemination will be addressed during the contract negotiation. SME participation The participation of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs) is of particular importance in this work programme. A special emphasis has been placed on the participation of SMEs; indeed the aim will be to enable at least 15% of the funding of the Cooperation programme to go to SME participants. Specific research topics of particular interest for SMEs, or specifically targeted at them, are highlighted in each Theme. Ethical aspects All research carried out under this work programme must respect fundamental ethical principles, and the requirements set out in the text of the Cooperation Specific Programme. More information on the procedures for the peer review of submitted proposals is given in the 'Guidelines on Proposal Evaluation and Project Selection Procedures'. The Commission is fully committed to the principles set out in the declaration on the use of human embryonic stem cells, as set out in the annex to the Commission Communication COM(2006)548 of 26 September 2006. This states that the Commission will maintain the practice of the Sixth Framework Programme. Accordingly, the Commission will not fund projects that include research activities,involving destruction of human embryos, including for the procurement of stem cells. The exclusion of this step of research from financial assistance will not prevent Community funding of subsequent steps involving human embryonic stem cells. Collaborative research This specific programme will support a range of research actions involving the active collaboration of research teams from all sectors, including industry, SMEs, universities and other higher education institutions, research institutes and centres, international European interest organisations, civil society organisations, and any other legal entities. These actions will be implemented through the FUNDING SCHEMES: collaborative projects, networks of excellence, research for the benefit of specific groups (in particular sMEs), and coordination support actions. Collaborative projects: They can range from small or medium-scale focused research actions, to large-scale integrating projects. Distinction between these two types of projects is based, unless specifically stated otherwise, on the size of the Community contribution requested. The related thresholds may vary for each Theme; these are specified in the relevant parts of this work programme. It is important to note that these thresholds will constitute eligibility criteria. Additional qualitative aspects may also be given in the relevant parts of this work programme with respect to collaborative projects. Researchers based in Associated States may take part in the cooperation programme on the same basis and with the same rights and obligations as those based in Member States. joint Technology initiatives: The Cooperation Programme foresees support for Joint Technology Initiatives (JTIs). The JTIs will cover fields of major European public interest, focussing on subjects identified through dialogue with industry, in particular with the European Technology Platforms. It is intended that the first legislative proposals for Joint Technology Initiatives will be presented in 2007. No funding for JTIs is included in the 2007 Cooperation work programme, although bridging measures are envisaged for a number of the potential JTIs to maintain momentum. Coordination of non-Community Research programmes: The coordination of non-Community research programmes is an important and integral part of the development of the European Research Area. This programme builds on the success of activities carried out in the Sixth Framework Programme. Actions foreseen in the Cooperation work programme will make use of two specific approaches - the ERA-NET scheme and the participation of the Community in jointly implemented national research programmes (through Article 169 of the Treaty). Two different types of ERA-NET actions are foreseen in the Cooperation work programme. Where actions are invited for topics falling within the scope of one of the Themes, the prescribed topics will be referred to under the Theme concerned and subsequent evaluations carried out under the theme's responsibility. Where, however, ERA-NET actions remain of a horizontal nature, or not directly linked to a Cooperation Theme, these will be evaluated and supported jointly across all of the Themes in as far as they have a sufficient European added value. Both types of actions (with few exceptions for certain topics, as indicated in Annex 4) will be invited through the same joint call. Further information on the horizontal ERA-NET activities is given in Annex 4 of thework programme; information on the Thematic ERA-NET activities called for in this work programme is given in the appropriate chapters and summarised in Annex 4. Initiatives for the participation of the Community in the joint implementation of national research programmes are foreseen for the Cooperation work programme. These will be subject to a separate decision on the basis of Article 169 of the Treaty. Further information on Article 169 activities are given either in the appropriate chapters of the relevant work programme, or in Annex 4 for Article 169 initiatives of a horizontal nature or not directly linked to Cooperation Themes. In addition, the Cooperation programme will also provide support to actions aiming at enhancing the complementarity and synergy between FP7 and ongoing cooperation initiatives (e.g. COST and EUREKA), other activities of intergovernmental research organisations, and networks and associations active at EU level. Further information on these activities is given in Annex 4 of the work programme. International cooperation International cooperation represents an important dimension of all research activities carried out within the Cooperation programme. International cooperation in the research actions in the Cooperation Programme is implemented in the following two ways: • Through opening up of research activities to researchers and research organisations from all International Cooperation Partner Countries (ICPC) and from industrialised countries. There is provision for the financing of the participation of research partners from the ICPC countries from the FP7 budget. In some of the topics included in the programme, the participation of particular countries is particularly welcomed, in areas of mutual interest for instance, and this is clearly stated in the topic description. This participation may also be implemented in the form of coordinated or joint calls. • Specific International Cooperation Actions (SICA) in each Theme, dedicated to the third countries in specific topics of mutual interest. Such SICA topics are clearly identified in each Theme. It should be noted that specific participation criteria apply to Collaborative Projects for such topics (participation of a minimum of 2 Member States or Associated countries plus 2 targeted countries). Unless specifically stated, there are no such specific participation criteria for coordination and Support Actions targeted at ICPC countries. However, depending on the nature and the expected impact of these actions, the participation of third countries in the projects could be considered essential. Further information on these criteria is given in each Theme and also in the relevant Guide for Applicants. A list of the International Cooperation Partner Countries is given in Annex 1 of the Guide. FUNDING SCHEMES Most of the funding schemes (instruments) used in FP6 have been replaced with new ones in FP7; however, their main characteristics remained mostly the same. Proposers can submit FP7 proposals through the following funding schemes (instruments): • Collaborative projects (CP) • Networks of Excellence (NoE) • Coordination and support actions (CSA) • Research for the benefit of specific groups • Individual projects - (ERC Frontier research) • Support for training and career development of researchers (Marie Curie Actions) • Joint Technology Initiatives (JTI) Some of the instruments used in FP6 were grouped together • STREPs and IPs to Collaborative Projects • CAs and SSAs to coordination and support actions • CRAFT and Collaborative to Research for the benefit of specific groups (SMEs) Comparison between FP6 and FP7: FP 6 FP 7 IP - Integrated Projects CP - Collaborative Project: • large scale integrated projects (ex IP) • small or medium-scale focused research projects (ex STREP) NoE - Networks of Excellence NoE - Networks of Excellence Coordination Action CSA Coordination and Support Actions : • coordinating (CA) • support actions (SA) Specific Support Action / Special Instruments Special Funding Schemes Main funding schemes i. Collaborative projects (CP) The size, scope and internal organisation of projects can range from small or medium-scale focused research actions to large-scale integrating projects for achieving a defined objective. To achieve the defined objective, proposers can choose two project types depending on the size, scope and internal organisation of their projects: • Small or medium-scale focused research actions • Large-scale integrating projects. 1. Small or medium scale projects The characteristics of small or medium-scale focused research projects (formerly STREP): OBJECTIVE: To support research projects aiming at developing new knowledge, new technology, products or common resources for research SUPPORTED ACTIVITIES: The content of the focused projects consists of the following three types of activities (the third is a combination of the first two plus project management): 1. A research and technological development activity - designed to generate new knowledge to improve competitiveness and/or address major social needs 2. A demonstration activity - designed to prove the viability of new technologies offering potential economic advantages but that can not be commercialised directly (e.g. testing of product like prototypes) 3. Project management activities (including innovation related activities like protection of knowledge dissemination and exploitation) SPECIFIC PROGRAMMES: Cooperation, Capacities CONSORTIUM COMPOSITION: At least three legal entities established in three different EU Member States or associated countries. The entities must be independent of each other. TARGET AUDIENCE: Research institutes, universities, industry including SMEs, potential end-users AVERAGE DURATION: 24-36 months OTHER CHARACTERISTICS: Fixed overall work plan with stable deliverables that are not expected to change during the lifetime of the project; enlargement of partnership within the initial budget. 2. Large-scale integrating projects The characteristics of large-scale integrating projects (formerly IP): OBJECTIVE: Support to research projects aiming at developing new knowledge, new technology, products or common resources for research. Integrating projects comprises a coherent set of activities and an appropriate management structure. SUPPORTED ACTIVITIES: Activities in an Integrating project may cover a combination of a number or all of the following: 1. Research and technology development activities: i.e. clearly defined scientific and technological objectives, aiming at a significant advance in the established state-of-the-art 2. Demonstration activities: designed to prove the viability of new technologies offering potential economic advantage but, which cannot be commercialised directly (e.g. testing of product-like prototypes) 3. Technology transfer or take-up activities 4. Training activities: training of researchers and other key staff 5. Dissemination activities 6. Knowledge management and exploitation 7. Any other specific type of activity directly related to the project's objectives 8. Consortium management activities SPECIFIC PROGRAMMES: Cooperation, Capacities CONSORTIUM COMPOSITION: At least three legal entities established in three different EU Member States or associated countries. The entities must be independent of each other. TARGET AUDIENCE: Research institutes, universities, industry including SMEs, (Possibly) potential end-users AVERAGE DURATION: 24-60 months OTHER CHARACTERISTICS: The consortium has a large degree of autonomy to adapt content and partnership and update the work plan, where appropriate. Enlargement of partnership within the initial budget. II. Networks of excellence OBJECTIVES: The Network of Excellence (NoE) is a funding scheme for strengthening excellence on a particular research topic by tackling the fragmentation of European research. The aim of NoE is to consolidate or establish European leadership at world level in their respective fields by integrating at European level the resources and expertise needed for the purpose. These goals will be achieved through the execution of a Joint Programme of Activities (JPA) aimed principally at creating a progressive and durable integration of the research capacities of the network partners while at the same time advancing knowledge on the topic. SUPPORTED ACTIVITIES: • Integrating activities: e.g. coordinated programming of the partners' activities; sharing of research platforms/tools/facilities; joint management of the knowledge portfolio; staff mobility and exchanges; relocation of staff, teams and equipment; reinforced electronic communication systems • Activities to support the network's goals: e.g. development of new research tools and platforms for common use; generating new knowledge to fill gaps in or extend the collective knowledge portfolio • Activities to spread excellence: e.g. training research and other key staff; dissemination of communication activities; networking activities to help transfer knowledge to outside of the network; innovation-related activities, where appropriate • Management activities SPECIFIC PROGRAMMES: Cooperation, Capacities; CONSORTIUM COMPOSITION: At least three legal entities established in three different EU Member States or associated countries. Between three and seven participants would seem to be optimal for a NoE. The entities must be independent of each other. TARGET AUDIENCE: Research institutes, universities AVERAGE DURATION: 48-60 months OTHER CHARACTERISTICS: Flexibility: yearly update of the work plan and enlargement of partnership (within the initial budget). iii. Coordination and support action Coordination and Support Actions (CSA, CSACA, CSASA) means coordination or networking and supporting actions; Within CSA there are two types of actions: • Coordination or networking actions • Specific support actions OBJECTIVES: Coordination or networking actions are designed to promote and support the ad hoc networking and coordination of research and innovation activities at national, regional and European level over the fixed period for a specific purpose SUPPORTED ACTIVITIES: May combine coordination activities and consortium man- agement activities. However, coordination actions do not conduct S&T research! Each Coordination Action shall propose a work plan, incorporating all or some of the following types of mid/long term collaborative activities: • Organisation of events (conferences, meetings) • Performance of studies, analyses • Exchanges of personnel • Exchanges and dissemination of good practices • Setting up of common information systems • Setting up of expert groups • Definition, organisation, management of joint or common initiatives • Management of the action SPECIFIC PROGRAMMES: Cooperation, People, Ideas, Capacities CONSORTIUM COMPOSITION: In the case of coordination Actions for coordination of research activities, at least three legal entities established in three different EU Member States or associated countries. The entities must be independent of each other. In the case of other coordination Actions there must be aAt least one legal entity. TARGET AUDIENCE: Research organisations; universities; industry including SME; research programme managers and owners (ERANET and Research Infrastructure actions) AVERAGE DURATION: Few months-48 months IV. Specific support actions OBJECTIVES: To contribute to the implementation of the Framework Programmes and the preparation of future Community research and technological development policy or the development of synergies with other policies, or to stimulate, encourage and facilitate the participation of SMEs, civil society organisations and their networks, small research teams and newly developed or remote research centres in the activities of the thematic areas of the Cooperation programme, or for setting up of research-intensive clusters across the EU regions. SUPPORTED ACTIVITIES: It may combine the following types of activities: support activities, consortium management activities. However, support actions do not conduct S&T research! Each support action shall have a work plan, which may consist of one or more (as appropriate on a case-by-case basis) of the following activities: • Conferences, seminars, working groups an expert groups • Studies, analyses • Monitoring and assessment activities • Conferences, seminars, studies • Preparatory technical work, including feasibility studies • Development of research or innovation strategies • High level scientific awards and competitions • Operational support, data access and dissemination, information and communication activities SPECIFIC PROGRAMMES: Cooperation; People; Ideas; Capacities CONSORTIUM COMPOSITION: Support action proposals may be presented by a consortium or a single organisation, from any country or countries TARGET AUDIENCE: Research organisations; universities; industry including SME; research programme managers and owners (ERANET and Research Infrastructure actions)M; AVERAGE DURATION: Few months-48 months V: Special funding schemes 1. a) Research for specific groups: The characteristics of research for the benefit of specific groups (SME's ex CRAFT and Collective): OBJECTIVE: Objective-driven research where the bulk of the research is carried out by RTD performers for the benefit of specific groups, in particular Small and Medium sized Enterprises (SMEs) -in small groups or in associations - or for Civil Society Organisations and their networks. SUPPORTED ACTIVITIES: • Research • Demonstration • Management of the consortium • Other activities including training SPECIFIC PROGRAMMES: Capacities (for SME, SME associations, CSO), Cooperation (for CSO only) CONSORTIUM COMPOSITION: At least three legal entities established in three different EU Member States or associated countries. The entities must be independent of each other. • research for sMEs: Three SME participants (from 3 different Member States or associated countries) and two RTD performers; (the average size: 5-10 participants) • research for sME associations: SME associations (3 associations from three different Member States or associated countries or 1 European), 2 RTD performers and at least 2 SMEs (as other enterprises and end-users); (the average size: 10-15 participants; the SME end users group should be limited to 2-5 members) • research for csos: At least one participant must be a CSO from a Member State or associated countries. TARGET AUDIENCE: SMEs, SME, associations, CSOs, RTD performers, other participants and end-users AVERAGE DURATION: Research for SMEs: 1-2 years; Research for SME associations: 2-3 years; Research for CSOs: n/a OTHER CHARACTERISTICS: Full ownership of the entire foreground belongs to the specific group; RTD performers are remunerated accordingly b) Individual projects: The characteristics of individual projects (ERC Frontier research): OBJECTIVE: Two types of ERC grants will be available: • ERc starting independent researcher Grants (ERC Starting Grants): Provide support for researchers, located in or moving to the EU and associated countries, regardless of their nationality to establish or lead their first research team or start an independent research programme. • ERC Advanced investigator Grants (ERC Advanced Grants): Encourage and support excellent, innovative investigator-initiated research projects by leading advanced investigators from both EU member states and associated countries. SUPPORTED ACTIVITIES: ERC Starting Grants supports researchers in creating independent and new individual research teams or teams recently created SPECIFIC PROGRAMMES CONCERNED: Ideas EU FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION: ERC Starting Independent Researcher Grants will be between 100,000 € and 400,000 € per year for a period of up to 5 years with Community financial contribution counting for 100% of the total eligible and approved direct costs and 20% of the total eligible direct costs (excluding sub-contracting) towards indirect costs. CONSORTIUM COMPOSITION: One legal entity established in a Member State or in an associated country (including candidate countries) or an International European Interest Organisation (CERN, EMBL, etc.) or the European Commission's Joint Research Centre. The Principal Investigator may be of any nationality but their country of primary residence must be an eligible state and the consortium can consist of more than one legal entity, including those located in third countries. TARGET AUDIENCE: • ERC Starting Grants - Independent researchers with the authority to apply for, hold and manage their own research funding, publish as senior authors and to supervise research students or others • ERC Advanced Grants - established independent research leaders AVERAGE DURATION: ERC Starting Grants - up to 5 years OTHER CHARACTERISTICS: Two-stage application procedure 2. MARIE CURIE OBJECTIVE: The objective of the Marie Curie Funding Scheme is to improve Europe's research and technology capabilities by promoting the researcher profession, encouraging European researchers to stay in Europe while making Europe more attractive to the best researchers worldwide. SUPPORTED ACTIVITIES: • Training of young researchers • Training and career development for experienced researchers • Establish partnerships and connections between industry and academia • Attract researchers from outside of Europe or establish research collaboration with researchers outside of Europe • Remove any obstacles to mobility and improve European researchers career perspectives SPECIFIC PROGRAMMES: Specific programmes concerned: People CONSORTIUM COMPOSITION: Legal entity in an international cooperation partner country (ICPC) and international European interest organisations may participate in Initial Training Networks, Industry-Academia Pathways and Partnerships, and possibly the reintegration phase of the Marie Curie International Incoming Fellowships. TARGET AUDIENCE: Young and experienced researchers; Co-funding of Regional, National and International Programmes (COFUND): Official public bodies that fund and manage fellowship programmes, (ministries, state committees for research, research academies, councils or agencies), other public or private bodies, including large research organisations, that finance and manage fellowship programmes and international bodies that manage similar systems at the European level. Industry-Academia Partnerships and Pathways (IAPP) - one or more universities/research centres and one or more enterprises, in particular SMEs, proposing a joint cooperation programme. AVERAGE DURATION: Initial Training Networks- 4 years; Marie Curie European Reintegration Grants- 2-3 years; International Reintegration Grants: 24-48 months 3. JOINT TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVES: 'Joint Technology Initiatives' (JTIs) are legal entities seeking new way of realising public-private partnerships in relevant industrial research and development fields at the European level and are based on Article 171 of the Treaty. For FP7, six areas are highlighted: hydrogen and fuel cells; aeronautics and air transport; innovative medicines; nano-electronics (ENIAC); embedded computing systems (ARTEMIS): global monitoring for environment and security. JTIs must meet the following criteria: • Strategic importance of the topic with a clear deliverable • Market failure • Demonstrated European Community value added • Proof of substantial, long-term industry commitment • Demonstrated inadequacy of existing Community instruments proposal preparation In the FP7, decisions regarding funding are made on the basis of proposals submitted following thr calls published by the Commission. Proposals describe planned research activities, information on who will carry them out, and how much they will cost. They must be submitted using a special web-based service before a strictly enforced deadline. The Commission evaluates all eligible proposals in order to identify those whose quality is sufficiently high for possible funding. The basis for this evaluation is a peer review carried out by independent experts. The Commission then negotiates with some or all of those whose proposals have successfully passed the evaluation stage, depending on the budget available. If negotiations are successfully concluded, grant agreements providing for an EU financial contribution are established with the participants. advantages of eu projects • Support is non-refundable in most cases; using EU funds is therefore advantageous compared with getting credit and support from market sources, because these normally have to be repaid with interest on top • You gain access to the resources of your partners - their technological resources, their knowledge, IPR, etc. • The relationships you form in a project will give a competitive advantage in the future, and it is becoming increasingly important to have established international relationships • You may identify new opportunities during projects and, for example, develop intellectual property for subsequent use disadvantages of eu projects Cost of preparation: Preparing a project proposal requires considerable effort. While quite a few costs can be incurred during the preparation of the project, such as personnel costs of the involved employees, travel costs to attend project meetings, external expert fees, etc., these costs cannot be put in the proposal as only those costs incurred after the contract signature are eligible. These costs are the applicant's own investments and will not be reimbursed by the project. The costs required in submitting a proposal are usually salary based, or subcontracting costs. Depending on the type of the project, you have to take into account the increasing costs of communication as well as the costs of business trips (e.g. participation in national or international meetings necessary for partner search). time scale: Also crucial is the timescale of the evaluation of the proposals and the contracting. Between the composition of the first sentence of the proposal and the contract signing, there can be a period of at least nine months for smaller RTD projects (max. 5 partners) and more than one year in the case of bigger projects (e.g. 25 consortium members). Executing the whole project may take another year or more, which can be elongated with the acceptation of the reports and the transfer of the final payment. During this time there may be changes in the economy (e.g. price increase, rate fluctuation, etc.), and the proposer would not want to wait years to implement a competitive idea or separate the technical development of the company from the success of a proposal. In such cases, a loan or mortgage could be a better way for an entrepreneur to proceed. financial problems: The third factor we must take into consideration is that the financial support gained by the proposal can be spent only for very specific purposes and under very strict conditions. During the lifetime of the project many conditions can change, for example, prices, technology or the whole market. However, any change in the original plan requires very precise explanations, the use of funds being closely monitored by the European Commission. Additionally, professional and financial auditing of the projects must be carried out. It may happen that the transfer of the support is overdue by a couple of months, either due to the fault of the coordinator or a partner, or simply because the responsible officer left the Commission and the new officer needs time to take over the projects. before starting the preparation • You need to have an innovative idea: Framework Programmes are designed for innovative project ideas or those that have some kind of novelty correlating to the state-of-the-art of the given field of science. • To which specific programme may your idea contribute? Only projects that correspond to the highlighted priorities of FP7 will be supported. • Does your idea contribute to objectives and content of an actual work programme and open calls? It is not enough to simply have an idea that is eligible for funding in FP7, we should also find the relevant topic in the work programme of the given field (e.g. Cooperation programme / Socioeconomic Sciences and Humanities / SSH-2007-2.2.3, Social platform on cities and social cohesion) the appropriate funding schemes, which depend on the project type and finally an actual Call for Proposal that supports this topic. • is your idea of European interest? Only ideas with a European dimension are supported. FP7 finances projects that have effects on the EU level and provide new approaches or solutions in the field of research and development. • A strong consortium: The composition of a consortium and reference of the partners is one of the most important evaluation criteria. Ideally, look for experienced partners that have already been involved in relevant FP projects and are able to provide the necessary references if invited into the consortium. • using all available information: The CORDIS website providing all the necessary information is very useful when one is preparing a successful FP7 proposal. • An eligible idea The first step in the process of proposal preparation is to have an idea eligible for support under the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Union. Proposers have a misconception that only ideas or projects that contain research and development activities are eligible for participation under FP7. In most cases this is true, but there are several other possibilities for proposers to participate in FP7 and receive EU support. For example: • Thematic dissemination projects • Identification and implementation of new services, which are useful for the SMEs to take part in European research projects (SSA) When we have an idea that seems to be eligible for FP7, we can start to search for a relevant call. A number of funding schemes are available to implement projects in FP7 but only certain ones may be available for the topics covered by the call. These are indicated in the call fiche. the most iMpoRTANT Documents oF The AppLicATioN package Proposals should be submitted in accordance with the terms set out in a call for proposals. In order to submit a proposal, applicants should consult the following documents: • The text of the call for proposals, as announced in the Official Journal of the European Union, and published on the webpage of the Theme concerned • Work programme • The relevant Guide for Applicants There are also a number of other useful texts that applicants should refer to, including: the Specific Programme 'Cooperation, Rules for Participation for FP7; the Guidelines on Proposal Evaluation and Project Selection Procedures; the Commission Recommendation on the European Charter for Researchers; the Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers. These documents, and other relevant background documents, are available on the CORDIS website. Every Member State and Associated State has appointed a set of National Contact Points (NCPs) to assist potential and successful applicants. There is a NCP for each of the Themes of the Cooperation Programme. Applicants are encouraged to contact their respective NCP. All relevant documents: call text, call fiche This document includes the deadline of submission, priorities, the budget available, the accessible funding schemes, the criteria for building a consortium, etc. call fiche: The first useful step is to download and read the announcement of the selected call thoroughly. Read the conditions step by step. The call fiche contains the most important information from the given call. Each call states in detail what it is looking for, minimum requirements in terms of partners, and any other conditions applying to the proposal. We can say that it is the short summary of the Work Programme and the Guide for Applicants. If we think that this call is not of real interest to us, then it is not necessary to download the other documents. However, if the Call Fiche is of interest to us, we can continue reading the Work Programme, where the relevant topics can be found presented in detail. Work programme: The Work Programme discusses and summarises the priorities identified in the call text. This document defines the main objectives and conditions of the programme regarding a particular topic, which may help us to decide under which priority our idea falls. It defines, furthermore, the available funding schemes in each topic. The Work Programme reviews the objectives of the European Commission concerning the given call. While the calls only outline the main targets, the Work Programme sets out in greater detail the areas addressed in the call and the priorities that have to be achieved by the proposal. Proposals cannot be accepted by the Commission if they fail to focus on the priorities of the Work Programme. Guide for Applicants: The related'Guidelines for Applicants' consists of the application forms as well as the instructions on how to fill them in. The proposal can be drawn up or prepared on the basis of these documents. Having found the correct call for proposals and having chosen the most suitable topics and funding schemes to address the call, we have to download the appropriate Guide for Applicants. The proposal can be prepared on the basis of this document. The guide helps the proposer to prepare a proper proposal by describing the formal requirements. It sets out in detail the structure and sections of the proposal, the maximum pages for each section, the required charts, diagrams and annexes. The Guide for Applicants generally contains the administrative forms (A forms) and detailed guidance on how to fill them in. The Guide describes different ways of submission (only electronic in FP7), specifies the deadline for reception (given in local time of Brussels), and gives other important information on the conditions of an FP7 proposal. Partner search: international consortia: Having found the most appropriate call for proposals for our project idea and having read the conditions, we should find international partners to implement the project. In most cases, it is obligatory to execute RTD projects through an international consortium, which contains at least 2-4 participants from different countries. Based on our experiences, we can say that identifying suitable partners is one of the main tasks in the first phase of project preparation. WHO can PARTICIPATE iN FP7? Project proposals can be submitted by individuals or legal entities (e.g. enterprises, universities, research institutes, public bodies, private bodies, NGOs, etc.) based in the following groups of countries: • Eu Member states: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom • Associated Countries: • Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway (EEA agreement) • Switzerland, Israel (bilateral S/T Agreements) • Turkey, Croatia, and Serbia (Memorandum of Understanding)4 • Third countries: Countries that are not EU Member States or a Candidate or an Associated Countries • Countries with signed scientific and Technological cooperation agreements: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Chile, Egypt, India, Mexico, Morocco, Russia, South Africa, Tunisia, Ukraine and United States THE importance OF THE consortium's composition Due to the high number of proposals submitted under FP7 and thus the high competition, the composition of the consortium plays an increasingly important role; this is the first step to being successful. Actually, the composition of the consortium and management has almost the same importance as the innovative factors or budget in the assessment. So, when we build up the consortium, it is not enough to fulfil only the formal requirements, we should involve experienced partners from the given field who can complement each other and who are able and willing to implement the project together. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) is not an associated country of FP7, although it became a Candidate Country in 2005. how to build a consortium This task might deter potential proposers from writing a proposal. However, forming a consortium that meets the Commission's requirements is not as difficult as it may seem because there are numerous ways to find a partner. How to do it depends on the proposal type, the proposer, the objectives and whether the proposer has already had successful proposals or partners in other projects. Before we start to search for partners, we should clearly identify what kind of partner we need and what their roles in the project will be. The Commission prefers consortiums where the partners complement each other without overlapping in tasks and responsibilities. Methods for effective partner search in fp7 Most effective partner search facilities in order of priority, enhancing their advantages and diminishing disadvantages: 1. Utilising the existing business contacts 2. Using CORDIS partner service 3. Searching through lists of supported projects in FP5-6 4. Exploiting NCP, EIC, IRC, other networks partner search services 5. Participating in information days and conferences consortium building and roles consortium building All FP7 projects have to fulfil the criterion of having a European dimension. In other words: only consortia of partners from different countries can apply. (Of course, there are exceptions, e.g. SSA, CA, ERC or the Marie Curie Actions.) In practice, this means that the consortium has to consist of at least three legal entities coming from Member States or Associated Countries. However, these rules vary from funding scheme to funding scheme. Moreover, they can alter between the certain thematic priorities, but the most reliable source is always the relevant call for proposals. Activities that can be better carried out at national or regional level will not be eligible under the Framework Programme. collaboration of the partners The core research activities of the Framework Programmes are undertaken by projects structured as collaboration between a group of partners who share tasks and responsibilities. This means that finding the right partners and setting up the collaboration or consortium is a key preparatory task. Partners need to complement one another and, at the same time, share an interest in the common problem they will be tackling in their research. Moreover, the consortium has to establish a management structure and procedures adapted to the type and complexity of the project. This is also an important criterion in the evaluation of proposals. composition of a good consortium Finding reliable partners and/or firms and institutions with a high number of references will help successfully to implement the project successfully. The evaluators do not check the partners one-by-one, but evaluate the consortium as a whole. If the consortium does not work or the partners' activities overlap, we cannot do anything with these redundant partners. A unique and complementary consortium is considered as the best one. This means that the consortium must be able to undertake all tasks from the coordination through planning while executing the project. conclusion: The uniqueness of the consortium depends on how we introduce the advantages of the partners, justify the importance of their participation and point out the value of the team. Members of the consortium have to prove a sufficient level of technical and financial reliability. They can be divided into three categories depending on the nature of their role in the project: coordinator manages the contacts between the members of the consortium and the Commission, supervises the work of consortium, writes reports and is responsible for the financial and administrative issues. partner or contractor is responsible for the completion of the appointed tasks, for the members of the consortium and for the benefits that might arise from the results of the project. subcontractor is not a participant in the project and thus does not benefit from the accomplishments but contributes to the achievement of the project, in exchange for remuneration. A subcontractor is not a "partner" or a contractor but is always associated with a contractor. The rules concerning subcontracting costs must be followed by subcontractors. Personnel employed by the contractor are not usually considered subcontractors whereas freelancers working for the contractor usually are (unless they become contractors in their own right) or are considered to be in-house consultants, working exclusively for the contractor on a full-time basis (intra muros). Subcontractor means a third party carrying out minor tasks related to the project, by means of a subcontract with one or more of the contractors. As a third party, the subcontractor is not reimbursed by the Commission directly but by the contractor on the basis of the agreement concluded between the contractor and the subcontractor. Once the subcontractor is paid by the contractor, the latter will be able to claim the reimbursement of that subcontracting expense from the Commission as a direct eligible cost. characteristics of a good consortium: • The consortium is complementary and unique • It is formed to find a solution to a problem of common interest • The consortium works out the management structure suiting project complexity in advance • The number of partners involved is sufficient for the realisation of project objectives • The partners are capable of carrying out all project-related activities • A well-established communication system and a jointly created project management structure assist partners coming from different cultural backgrounds • Partners jointly agree on the form and method of cooperation, which is concluded by a contract (consortium agreement) electronic submission of proposals Please note that as part of the start up of FP7, the Electronic Proposal Submission Service (EPSS) is available at least four weeks before the call deadline. Further information is always given on the CORDIS site. About the Epss Proposals must be submitted electronically, using the Commission's electronic proposal submission service (Epss). Proposals submitted by any other means are regarded as 'not submitted, and will not be evaluated. All the data that you upload is securely stored on a server to which only you and the other participants/partners in the project proposal have access. This data is encrypted until the close of the call. You can access the EPSS from the CORDIS website. Full instructions will be found in the "EPSS preparation and submission guide". This will be available from the CORDIS site early in 2007. The most important points are explained below. use of the system by the proposal coordinator and partners As a coordinator you can: • Register as interested in submitting a proposal to a particular call • Set up (and modify) your consortium by adding/removing participants • Complete all of Part A of the proposal, pertaining to the proposal in general, and to your own administrative details • Download the document template for writing Part B of the proposal and, when completed, upload Part B • Submit the complete proposal Part A and Part B In exceptional cases, when a proposal coordinator has absolutely no means of accessing the EPSS, and when it is impossible to arrange for another member of the consortium to do so, an applicant may request permission from the Commission to submit on paper. A request should be sent via the FP7 enquiry service (see annex 1), indicating in the subject line "Paper submission request". (You can telephone the enquiry service if web access is not possible: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 from Europe; or 32 2 299 96 96 from anywhere in the world. A postal or email address will then be given to you). Such a request, which must clearly explain the circumstances of the case, must be received by the Commission no later than one month before the call deadline. The Commission will reply within five working days of receipt. If derogation is granted, a proposal on paper may be submitted by mail, courier or in person. The delivery address will be given in the derogation letter. use of the system by the partner participants Other participants can: • Complete their own sections A2 (participant details) • Download the document template for writing Part B of the proposal, in order to as- sist the coordinator in preparing it (however, only the coordinator can upload the finished version) • View the whole proposal WHAT EXACTLY IS EPSS? The Electronic Proposal Submission System (EPSS) is an Internet-based application providing a secure workspace for a consortium to prepare and submit a proposal jointly. Access requires only a standard web browser; no special software has to be installed. It is a very important rule that proposals for indirect RTD actions must be prepared and submitted online using the EPSS system. Proposals submitted in any other method (mail, e-mail, personally) and those submitted on-line incomplete or with a virus affected file will be excluded. How does it work? After the registration, which takes around 10 minutes, the coordinator can set up the consortium by adding/removing participants and downloading the document template for writing Part B of the proposal. After that, the common work can start. There are three administration forms: A1, A2 and A3. The A2 (partner's profile) forms have to be filled in by the partners, while only the coordinator is allowed to fill in the A1 and A3 forms. Any modifications in any of the forms can only be done by the coordinator. For the proposal Part B, proposers must exclusively use PDF. Other file formats will not be accepted by the system. Completing Part A forms in the EPSS and uploading Part B does not mean that your proposal is submitted. Once there is a consolidated version of the proposal, the coordinator must expressly submit it by pressing the "SuBMIT" button. Only the coordinator is authorised to submit the proposal. The coordinator may continue to modify the proposal and resubmit revised versions, overwriting the previous one (submit early, submit often!), right up until the deadline. All the data that you upload is securely stored on a server, to which only you and the other participants in the proposal have access. This data is encrypted until the close of the call. Good to know When you submit your proposal via the EPSS you will promptly receive an automatic email confirming that the proposal has been submitted. We strongly suggest submitting your proposal as soon as it is in complete form. The email message coming back to you will assure you that all is well with the submission procedure. Then you can continue to work on the proposal and re-submit it each time you have an updated version. Each resubmission will overwrite the previous one. Keep on doing this right up to the close of the call. If you wait right until the deadline before you start uploading your proposal, there is a serious risk that you will not be able to submit it in time. The last eligible version of your proposal received before the deadline is the one that will be evaluated and no material can be submitted later. Irrespective of any page limits, there is an overall size limit of 10 Mb (Part B). Restrictions also apply to the name of the Part B file. You should only use alphanumeric characters, special characters and spaces must be avoided. HOW TO WRITE AN FP7 PROPOsAL ADMINISTRATIVE FORMS First, let us introduce the administrative forms of a typical FP7 proposal together with a detailed description of its preparation processes. In fact, we could have chosen any FP7 call and/or funding scheme, because the 'A' forms and the questions of section B are largely identical. Consequently, when preparing FP7 projects, you will find the same set of questions in the proposals. the content of the fp7 proposal Proposal Part A (forms): A1 - Proposal title and abstract A2 - Partner details (one A2 per partner) A3 - Costs and funding requested general information It is recommended always to use the Guide for Applicants when filling in the administrative forms. Read and follow the instructions carefully. Although the forms are easy to complete with the help of the Guide, one or two sections demand more attention and are discussed below in more detail. Because the proposals are submitted electronically (EPSS), the system is able to detect and indicate all mistakes. Thanks to this, proposers can easily avoid errors during the proposal preparation. As a result of the electronic submission, no signatures are required in FP7. Formal commitments will have to be made only at the next step (contract negotiation for successful proposals). However, it is stated in the guides for applicants that when submitting a proposal, the coordinator is deemed to have the necessary authorisations of all participants. The Commission does not prescribe the form in which the authorisations should be made; they are not checked, as this is a matter of internal organisation of the Consortium. part a of the proposal A1 form • The proposal title should be expressive and no longer than 20 words • The acronym should be no longer than 20 characters • You can choose a maximum of three activity codes and keywords that are connected to the project • Call part identifier: This box is automatically filled in by the programme. However this information can be found on the front page or in the header of each page of the Guide for Applicants (e.g. FP7-ENV-2007-1) • Similar proposal or signed contracts: It does not mean that you should indicate all of our previously submitted proposals, only those with a similar subject or the consortium composition A1 form - abstract The abstract (summary) should be brief (max. 2000 characters) clear, concise and convincing. It should contain all important information on the project. Most evaluators will first read this part of the proposal, therefore, it must be prepared perfectly. It has to contain all the necessary information about the project. It should be prepared at the end of the proposal writing process, when the B part is finished. A possible solution is to copy the most important sentences from the proposal to the abstract. The abstract must contain information on the following topics: • The main objectives of the proposal • The main tasks intended to be executed during the project • The innovative character of the proposal. What is the novelty of it comparing with the state-of-the-art? Why is it better? • Short introduction of the consortium composition and the relevant experiences A2 form The A2 form should be filled in by all partners, first the coordinator (partner 1, P1), followed by the partners, according to the instructions in the Guide. This form can be filled in directly by the partner via the EPSS. As compared to FP6, some boxes were changed in this form: • New boxes or fields with the status of your organisation and the NACE code are included in the form • The question on the dependencies between the partners has been slightly changed • A2 form - Person in charge At the end of this form we have to add the coordinates of the contact person -"Person in 34 charge" - who will be mainly responsible for the implementation of the project on behalf of the given organisation, partner institution. In the case of the coordinator (participant number 1), this person is in charge for communication with the Commission. A3 form The A3 form shows the costs and is relatively easy to fill in compared with other Community Programmes, although it seems to be a bit more complex than it was in FP6 (more cost details with a distinction between direct/indirect costs). Only a few columns should be completed, but when we prepare the budget, we have to take into account the new financial rules specified below. How to calculate the indirect costs? Indirect costs represent a fair apportionment of the overall overheads of the organisation necessary for the implementation of the research project. They may be calculated according to the following methods: 1. Real indirect costs Real indirect costs or costs calculated using a simplified method Participants may use a simplified method of calculation for its full indirect eligible cost if it is in accordance with their usual accounting and management principles and practices. Use of such a method is only acceptable where the lack of analytical accounting or the legal requirement to use a form of cash-based accounting prevents detailed cost allocation. The simplified approach must be based on actual costs derived from the financial accounts of the period in question. 2. Flat rate 1; Standard flat rate; participants may opt for a 20% flat rate of its total direct eligible cost (excluding subcontracting costs). Flat rate 2; Special transition flat rate; non-profit public bodies, secondary and higher education organisations, research institutes and SMEs, which are unable to identify with certainty their real indirect costs for the project, participating in funding schemes, which include research and technological development and demonstration activities (not coordination, support actions, fellowships) may opt for a flat rate of 60 % (from 2010 it will be reduced to a max. 40%) of the total direct eligible costs (excluding subcontracting costs). The rates of the financial contribution The maximum reimbursement rates for costs incurred are determined by the type of activity: • Research and technological activities: 50% of eligible costs except for • Public bodies: 75% • Secondary and higher education establishments: 75% • Research organisations (non-profit): 75% • SMEs: 75% • Demonstration activities: 50% of eligible costs • Other activities: 100% including, for example, management activities • Frontier research actions 100% • Coordination and support actions 100% • Training and career development of researchers' actions 100% Management costs are reimbursed at up to 100% of eligible costs. Within FP6, this was limited to 7% of the total Community financial contribution to the project. In FP7 this limit has been removed, however consortia would have to present a very strong justification for amounts greater than 7%. part b of the proposal The Part B is the most important part of the proposal as it contains presentation of the concepts on the planned project initiatives. It is a document with tables, written to a predetermined format in a limited length. The format can vary for different funding schemes and from call to call. However, each proposal contains the following sections: • Cover Page • Table of Contents • B1 Scientific and/or technical quality, relevant to the topics addressed by the call (including the work plan) • B2 Implementation (including the management structure and the profile of the consortium members) • B3 Impact (including the dissemination and exploitation plan and the IPR) • B4 Ethical Issues • B5 Consideration of gender aspects How to fill in part B When we prepare part B, we must strictly follow the instructions of the Guide, where detailed information can be found on how to fill in certain sections. Following the instructions, the proposal can be prepared without any problems. The provided tables must be used and filled in by the proposers alone and no modifications are allowed. Do not modify the order or the name of the sections and do not add new ones. Proposers have to keep to the maximum page lengths specified. The excess pages will be disregarded during the evaluation. Even where no pages limit is given or where it is only recommended, it is in the proposers interest to keep the text solid. Concise proposals are welcomed by the evaluators. Cover Page The cover page contains administrative information on our proposal for identification reasons. The following data must be presented on one page: • The full title of the proposal: the same as was given in A1 • Acronym: copy it from A1 • Type of funding scheme: e.g. small and medium-scale focused researched project • Work Programme topics addressed: indicate the most relevant topics in the order of their importance (e.g., ENV.2007.1.1.6.4. Exploitation and dissemination of climate change) • Name of the coordinating person: usually the person indicated as the person in charge in the A2 section • List of participants: the same participant numbering as in A2 (the coordinator is always listed first) B1 - Scientific & technical quality This part contains three chapters: • Concept and objectives • Progress beyond the state-of-the-art • S/T methodology and associated work plan The whole section must be longer than 20 pages, plus the given tables. Because the main part of this section is the third one (S/T methodology), the first two sections should not be longer than 5 pages (e.g. Objectives 3 pages, state-of-the-art 2 pages). 1.1. Concept and objectives In this section, the objective of the research programme and its added value to the addressed topics of the programme should be demonstrated. We must specify clearly the need for the proposed project and its relevance to the proposers, their sector and, if relevant, other sectors. We have to specify and quantify reliable and realistic scientific, technical, wider societal, and policy objectives and/or targets. We should define results intended to be achieved during the project implementation. The objectives and planned results should be stated in a measurable and verifiable form, including the milestones indicated under section 1.3. During the preparation of this sub-section, it is very important to look at the work programme very carefully and choose those areas relevant for your project idea. It is marked very positively in the evaluation if the project contributes to more than one area of the given Work Programme. 1.2. Progress beyond the state-of-the-art First, we have to describe the international state-of-the-art on which the project's approach is based, by means of a documentary study including, for example, literature, publications, patents, standards and database searches. Second, we must specify the main innovations claimed, defining the scope of development of new or improved products, processes or services, and show that it represents a significant step forward beyond the state-of-the-art. Finally, we must give a critical appraisal of the level of technical risk and any relevant factors, which may influence the chance of success. G H a "3 a-■ L< sc E i ji S J« P r1 li* " ■ r 1 t E S i d % S eM JB s D r. S f - -- 3 S +■ J d a t H ■ - i Nr i ■ - JI 31: i * 3 Z - 9 3 2 Iftli i C C n a O C ■y- C C + s S s »fife I! * - -T rt" C s — HtJI It *■ E C C C d O ■ ■ , . ■J" —s n D jj ™ srvac S LIL e: <=• 5 fl a ■ 10 = """i o ■= * — S * met>< s" S b ■ K " - sin .n ■ 3 H^ri IL-Vlf C s L1J n — I > ZL a e 3 O E g £ O yj ■s O £ C. £ UJ s i s t 3 2. \ s ^ 1 i; £ I t i 1 1 f E £ i C ž ■a i ■ i i r | i 1 s i z 1 i! ji i -■j • i l t i ! £ : ij : (_l H l h ' i" S i i; i 1 i 1 t I ? li i H I s a £ ! i ^ S s £ i l E L § V 1 T i £3 1 j| j J i 1 rr h- s S uT n ■ i i i i i Figure 3.1 1.3. S/Tmethodology and associated work plan In this part we have to prepare a detailed work plan on the research project intended to be executed using the given forms and tables. The length of this sub-section should not exceed 15 pages, plus the forms and tables. The work plan should be broken down into work packages (WPs), which should follow the logical phases of the project, and include participants and management of the project, their tasks, milestones, deadlines, and assessment of progress and results. The plan must be presented in the following order: OvERALL sTRATEGY: First, we have to describe in detail the research approach and technical programme in terms of its structure and methodology for the full duration of the proposed project. TIME SCALE: We must specify the work planning, showing the timing of the different WPs and their components (Gantt chart or similar). WORK DEscRiPTiON: • Work package list (use the Work package list form) • Deliverables list (use Deliverables list form) • Description of each work package (use Work package description form, one per work package) • Summary effort table (use Summary of staff effort form) • List of milestones (use List of milestones form) The number of work packages used must be appropriate to the complexity of the work and the overall value of the proposed project. Each work package should be a major sub-division of the proposed project and should have a verifiable end-point (normally a deliverable or an important milestone in the overall project). Please note that there are two work packages, project management and dissemination that are not obligatory; however it is recommended to integrate them into the work plan. interdependencies: Finally, you have to prepare the graphical presentation of the components showing their interdependencies (Pert diagram or similar). Figure 3.1 and 3.2. B2 - Implementation 2.1. Management structure and procedures This is one of the most important parts of the proposal, although it can only be a maximum of 5 pages in length. We must prove that: the consortium is capable of successfully realising the proposed project; the coordinator has relevant experience; and the propesed management structure is eligible for the implementation of an RTD project. First, you have to demonstrate the management capabilities of the coordinator in terms of experience and available resources. Secondly, you have to describe the organisational structure and decision-making mechanisms, and outline the communication strategy of the partnership, identify methods for monitoring and reporting progress, and documenting results. Last but not least, the experiences of the coordinator and the partners should also be demonstrated. The exhaustive elaboration of this section Figure 3.2 is important since many proposals fail at this point. It may be preferential for the coordinator to have EU project management experience. 2.2. Individual participants In this section you have to present a profile of each participant, including: organisation name, type, size, full range of business activities, contractual role, role in the research project, degree of involvement and qualifications for these roles. For each individual participant, you must outline the consistency between its business or academic activities, their intended role in the project, and the benefits they expect to derive from participating in the project. We must provide a short profile (few lines) of the staff members who will be involved (with references). The maximum length is one page per participant. 2.3. Consortium as a whole In this part of the proposal, a detailed introduction of the participants and modes of cooperation has to be provided. How they complement each other and what is their role. We have to justify the structure of the group of participants in terms of their common or complementary interests in the RTD and in the exploitation of the results, e.g. as suppliers, manufacturers and end-users. We should prove to the evaluators that it is a unique and well-balanced consortium capable of achieving the project objectives. We must also show that all of the partners are necessary to implement the project successfully and all of the main tasks are assigned to a partner. Finally, the roles of the partners are clear without any overlapping. Other issues: • Subcontracting: If any parts of the project tasks are foreseen to be subcontracted by the partner responsible for it, we have to describe the work involved and explain why a subcontract approach has been chosen for it. • Other countries: If one or more of the partners is based outside of the EU and Associated states and not on the list of International Cooperation Partner Countries, we must explain in terms of the project's objectives why this/these participants have been involved and justify the level of importance of their contribution to the project. • Additional partners: If there are no partners identified in the project yet, the expected competences, the role of the potential participants and their integration into the running project should be described. 2.4. Resources to be committed In addition to the costs indicated in part A3 of the proposal and the staff effort shown in the given table, you have to indicate any other major costs (e.g. equipment). You have to justify that the project foresees the resources (personnel, equipment and financial) necessary for success. Moreover, you have to describe the resources, human and material that will be deployed for the implementation of the project. Finally, we ought to demonstrate how the project will mobilise the critical mass of resources (personnel, equipment, financial) necessary for success; show that the overall financial plan for the project is adequate. The maximum length of section 2.4 is 2 pages. B3 - Impact 3.1. Expected impact listed in the Work Programme In this section we have to identify the direct and expected impacts listed in the Work Programme and explain how the project will contribute to these. We ought to explain how the results of the project will improve the competitiveness of the proposers. Moreover, we have to provide economic justification for the proposed research, i.e. its cost effectiveness, taking into account the overall cost of the project in relation to its potential direct economic benefits for the proposers. Furthermore, this section must contain an exposition of the European Dimension of the project. This means that we have to explain why and how the project would contribute to solving problems at the European level, i.e. why the expected impact of carrying out the work at the European level with a transnational approach would be greater than the sum of the impacts of national projects. External factors that may affect project implementation should be described as well. 3.2. Dissemination and/or Exploitation of project results and management of intellectual property A very important issue in the evaluation procedure is how the achieved results will be disseminated to all interested parties. We have to introduce in a dissemination plan what kind of dissemination channels (internet, media, e-mail, conference, etc.) will be used during the project. Furthermore, we should provide concrete numbers of potential clients, users, participants, etc. needed to achieve our dissemination activities. We should prove that the project would reach the critical mass necessary to allow the project to have an impact even after the financing period. We must also describe the industrial or commercial routes envisaged for the exploitation of the results, e.g. describe the steps that are foreseen to ensure that the proposers will be able to assimilate and exploit the results of the project. Finally, we have to explain the plan for the management of knowledge and intellectual property, and of other innovation-related activities that might arise during the project. The maximum length of section 3 is 10 pages. B4 - Ethical issues In this section we must identify in our proposals any ethical issues raised by our project and explain carefully how these will be properly addressed. The following special issues should be taken into account: • Informed consent, e.g. illustrate the level of ethical sensitivity or incidental findings • Data protection issues, e.g. the method for using personal data, how it will be protected • Use of animals, only where animals are used in research, e.g. description of what happens to the animals after the research experiments • Human embryonic stem cells, only for affected projects, e.g. the justification of its necessity B5 - Consideration of gender aspects This section will not be evaluated, but will be discussed during negotiations if the proposal is successful. We may give an indication of the sort of actions that would be undertaken during the course of the project to promote gender equality in our project, or in our field of research. These could include actions related to the project consortium (e.g. improving the gender balance in the project consortium, measures to help reconcile work and private life, awareness raising within the consortium) or, where appropriate, actions aimed at a wider public (e.g. events organised in schools). financial issues who is eligible for Fp7 funding? FP7 funding is available for any type of legal entity (universities, industry, SME, etc.) established in an EU Member State, Associated Country, a partner country with whom international cooperation has been agreed and any international organisation with a European interest. Other entities may be funded under special circumstances. FORMS OF FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION FROM EC Forms of grants in FP7: • Reimbursement of eligible costs • Flat rate financing including scale of unit costs • Lump sum financing There are three types of grants, with the most common type of funding being a reimbursement of costs that can be combined with the other two types of funding, namely flat rates and lump sums. Reimbursement of eligible costs The "Reimbursement of eligible costs" is based on the concept of "eligible costs" that include both direct and indirect costs. The level of reimbursement depends on the type of activity of projects and the type of organisation. DIRECT COSTS: Direct project costs are the cost of personnel (permanent and additional including taxes), equipment, travel, etc., and must be calculated in accordance with the accounting practices and principles normally used by the proposer. INDIRECT COSTS: For indirect costs (overheads), if the proposer's accounting system does not allow the allocation of indirect costs to a specific project, the amount charged is based on a standard rate specified by the EU. If an institution can provide documentary evidence of indirect project costs, it can claim the full amount. DEFINITION OF ELIGIBLE COSTS: In order to be eligible, costs must meet the following criteria: • Actual • Incurred during the project • Determined according to usual accounting and management principles/practices • Used solely to achieve project objectives • Consistent with the principles of economy, efficiency and effectiveness • Recorded in accounts of the proposers (or the accounts of third parties) • Exclusive of non-eligible costs Flat rates for indirect costs Indirect costs shall represent a fair apportionment of the overall overheads of the organisation. They may be identified according to one of the following methods: a) Real indirect costs or costs calculated using a simplified method: A proposer may use a simplified method of calculation of its full indirect eligible cost at the level of its legal entity, if it is in accordance with its usual accounting and management principles and practices. Use of such a method is only acceptable where the lack of analytical accounting or legal requirement to use a form of cash-based accounting prevents a detailed cost allocation. The simplified approach must be based on actual costs derived from the financial accounts of the period in question. b) Standard flat rate: A participant may opt for a flat rate of 20% of its total direct eligible costs (excluding its direct eligible costs for subcontracting and the costs of reimbursement of resources made available by third parties), which are not used on the premises of the participant. c) Special transition flat rate: Non-profit public bodies, secondary and higher education establishments and research organisations and SMEs, which are unable to identify with certainty their real indirect costs for the project, when participating in funding schemes, which include research and technological development and demonstration activities (not coordination, support actions, fellowships, etc.) may opt for a flat rate of 60 % (from 2010 on max. 40%) of the total direct eligible costs excluding costs for subcontracting and the costs of reimbursement of resources made available by third parties that are not used on the premises of the participant. If these participants change their status during the life of the project, this flat rate shall be applicable up to the moment they lose their status. d) Lump-sum funding: The EU funding can also be given as a lump sum, which can be used for the whole project or a part thereof. Lump sums do not require justification of costs. For Networks of Excellence, a special lump sum is proposed based on both the number of researchers "integrated" in the project and its duration. The amount of the lump sum is 23,500 € per researcher per year. Periodic payments of portions of the lump sum would be paid according to the attainment of indicators showing progressive implementation of the Joint Programme of Activities (JPA). For individual projects, some coordination and Support Actions, Marie Curie Actions and the International Cooperation Partner Countries the lump sum calculation method will be used as well. maximum funding rates of the certain activities The funding rates of Community contribution were changed in FP7; the beneficiaries of the changes are SMEs who receive greater financial support as they did in FP6. The rates of the financial contribution differ depending on the supported activities. Cost categories Usually only the following three cost categories are indicated in the A3 forms of the FP7 proposals: personnel costs: Personnel costs are the salary paid to workers, based on the actual hours taken to perform project tasks. Workers must: • Be hired by the beneficiary, in line with the appropriate national legislation • Be supervised and managed by the participant • Receive payment according to the normal practices of the participant Participants may declare average personnel costs, according to a Commission approved methodology and following the participant's normal management principles and usual accounting practices. As such, average personnel costs may be used if the above points are followed and if the costs are not significantly different from the actual personnel costs. subcontracting: Certain elements of the tasks can be carried out by subcontractors, in accordance with the following conditions: • Subcontracts may only cover the execution of a limited part of the project (usually less than 20 % of the partner's total eligible costs) • The amount, the necessity of these costs and the capability of the selected parties, (who will execute the work), should be specified in Part B • The use of the foreground (knowledge in FP6) must remain with the partners even if it is produced by the subcontractor other direct costs: The category "other direct costs" includes the direct costs, which are not covered by the above-mentioned categories of costs. These direct costs could be travel costs, consumables, equipment, etc. Risk avoidance mechanism ("Guarantee fund") The new FP7 Guarantee Mechanism serves to cover the risk of financial losses. It replaces the former Financial Collective Responsibility used in FP6 and is proposed to work in the following way: Financial loss • Financial responsibility of each participant is limited to its own debt (vs. collective financial responsibility in FP6) • Commission establishes and operates a participant guarantee fund to assess risk of default and to cover financial loss Partner contribution • 5% of the grant will be withheld by the Commission from each participant as a contribution to the guarantee fund. It will be taken from the first advance payment to fund the guarantee mechanism. Guarantee will be reimbursed (minus interest) with final payment after the successful implementation of the project and the justification of the occurred costs. Guarantee will be repaid in full to all except for those organisations not covered by a government guarantee who will receive 4%. Because only public bodies have a government guarantee, all of the private companies repay a maximum of 1% of their EC contribution for unrecoverable defaults (if interest generated is not sufficient to cover losses). • Participants in certain types of funding schemes (training, frontier research, actions for benefit of specific groups except SMEs) are exempt from the above. Advantage: Advantage of the mechanism: less ex-ante financial checks will be carried out (only for coordinators and if grant to a participant is more than 500,000 €) and no more bank guarantees will be required. Another new instrument proposed under FP7 is the "Risk-Sharing Finance Facility". It aims to improve access to EIB debt finance for participants in large European research actions such as new research infrastructures and large collaborative projects, including those from EUREKA. By sharing risk with the EIB, the facility will allow a larger volume of loans for research projects and the financing of bankable projects with a higher risk than would otherwise be possible for the EIB. Checklist Our proposal: Q Is it complete? Q Is the partnership right? Q Can we all work together? Q Clear roles, responsibilities, critical mass, etc. Q Does it address all the questions? (See guide for applicants) Q Does it address the work programme? (Check with the call!) Q Are the objectives clear? Q Is it clear how the project will be managed? some good advice • It is the quality of the consortium that matters, not the number of participants • For proposals to be successful, they need optimal preparation: select one proposal and make it win! • Do not artificially adapt a proposal to a strategic objective • Pay attention to using the full range of activities allowable for the new funding scheme. Give realistic cost / resource estimates Choose partners you would like to work with for years. Consider language barriers and cultural differences Check the reputation and resource of partners Pay extra attention to coordination of large projects; ensure that (international) project management expertise is available PROPOSAL EVALUATION - TYPICAL FAILURE Fatal mistakes: • Incomplete proposal (must have a Part A and Part B) • Unbalanced project consortium, 'alibi' partners • Out of scope of call (activity or funding schemes) • Not innovative, not going beyond the state-of-the-art • Focusing on a purely national issue, or one with no benefit to the EU • Late submission Handicaps: • Wrong funding schemes chosen • Not conforming to required Part B contents, length • Objectives, methods, approach unclear • Lack of scientific and technological excellence • All results come at the end of the project, no intermediate results • Management structure & processes not appropriate evaluation and negotiation For proposals submitted on-line via the EPSS, file contents are entered into the databases after the call closure. No evaluation or analysis of the proposal contents may take place before the call deadline (except continuously open calls). The main stages of project selection are: • Stage 1: Receipt of proposals and sending an acknowledgement of receipt • Stage 2: Verification of eligibility of proposals from an administrative point of view (date of submission, presence of all the forms, transnational character of the project, etc.) • Stage 3: Individual evaluation of eligible proposals by external experts taking into account the socio-economic and, where appropriate, the ethical aspects of the proposal • Stage 4: Preparation of the Consensus Report form based on the evaluators discussion • Stage 5: Preparation of the Evaluation Summary Reports (ESR) at the panel meeting • Stage 6: The Commission ranks the proposal and a prioritised list of proposals is drawn up acknowledgement of receipt (stage 1) Acknowledgement of receipt is generally sent out three weeks after the closing date for submitting proposals. Upon receipt of the proposal, the Commission records the date and time of receipt. Subsequently, an acknowledgement of receipt letter is sent to the proposal coordinator by e-mail, fax or post containing: • Proposal title, acronym and unique proposal identifier (proposal number). The proposal number is the number to refer to for any communication with the Commission • Name and programme and/or activity/research area and call identifier to which the proposal was addressed • Date and time of receipt The Acknowledgement of receipt confirms the proposal has been registered but does not mean it fulfils the eligibility criteria. Proposers who have not received an Acknowledgement of receipt in time should urgently contact the Information Desk. The brief electronic message given by the EPSS system after submission does not constitute an official Acknowledgement of receipt. ELIGIBILITY CHECK (STAGE 2) The Commission verifies that proposals meet the eligibility criteria referred to in the call. These criteria are rigorously applied and any proposal found to be ineligible is excluded from evaluation. The eligibility check is carried out after receipt of the proposals. In the case of a two-stage proposal submission, each stage is subject to an eligibility check. An eligibility form is filled in for each proposal on the basis of the information contained in the proposal. If it becomes clear before, during or after the evaluation phase that one or more of the eligibility criteria have not been fulfilled, the proposal is declared ineligible and withdrawn from any further examination. Where there is a doubt about the eligibility of a proposal, the Commission reserves the right to proceed with the evaluation, pending a final decision on eligibility. The fact that a proposal is evaluated in such circumstances does not constitute proof of its eligibility. INDIVIDUAL EVALUATION (STAGE 3) All proposals that fulfil the eligibility criteria are evaluated by the Commission, assisted by independent experts, to examine their conformity with the evaluation criteria relevant for the call (it can be found in the Guide for applicants). Evaluation criteria Proposals are evaluated against a set of criteria. Depending on the call, these points can be complemented by others, however, the following three main criteria will be included in each evaluation form: A. S/T quality: Scientific and/or technological excellence: • Soundness of the concept and quality of the objectives • Innovative character in relation to the state-of-the art • Contribution to advancement of knowledge / technological progress • Quality and effectiveness of S/T methodology and associated work plan B. Implementation: Quality and efficiency of the implementation and management: • Appropriateness of the management structure and procedures • Quality and relevant experience of the individual participants • Quality of the consortium as a whole (including complementarities and balance) • Appropriate allocation and justification of the resources to be committed (budget, staff, equipment, etc.) C. Impact: Potential impact through the development, dissemination and use of project results: • Contribution, at the European and/or international level, to the expected impacts listed in the work programme under the relevant topic/activity • Appropriateness of measures envisaged for dissemination and/or exploitation of project results, and management of intellectual property Evaluators A minimum of three (3-5) independent experts (evaluators) examine each eligible proposal submitted to the Commission. In general, independent experts are expected to have skills and knowledge appropriate to the areas of activities in which they are asked to assist. Experts must also have the appropriate language skills required for the evaluation of proposals. The Commission uses the following selection criteria to choose the expert group: • An appropriate range of competencies • An appropriate balance between academic and industrial expertise and users • A reasonable gender balance • A reasonable distribution of geographical origins of independent experts • Regular rotation of independent experts Proposal marking Evaluators examine the individual issues comprising each block of evaluation criteria and in general mark the blocks on a six-point scale from 0 to 5. In this scheme, the scores indicate the following with respect to the block under examination: • 0 - the proposal fails to address the issue under examination or cannot be judged against the criterion due to missing or incomplete information • 1 - poor • 2 - fair • 3 - good • 4 - very good • 5 - excellent Where appropriate, half marks may be given. A positive feature of the described procedure is that it allows the evaluators to reflect on the individual issues comprising the blocks of criteria. By only taking the marks for the blocks of criteria into consideration in the final evaluation of the proposals, evaluators are encouraged to 'look at the larger picture' and score the proposal against these important blocks of criteria as a whole, rather than applying a "mechanical" process of adding any marks given for individual issues. Thresholds Thresholds may be set for some or all of the blocks of criteria, so that any proposal failing to achieve the threshold marks will be rejected. Each of the criteria has a threshold score of 3 out of 5, which a proposal must reach in order to be considered. There is also a threshold on the overall score of 10 out of 15. Proposals, which fail to reach these thresholds, are not considered for funding. If the proposal fails to achieve a threshold for a block of criteria, the evaluation of the proposal may be stopped. The reasons will be detailed in the consensus report. It may be decided to divide the evaluation into several steps with the possibility of different experts examining different aspects. Where the evaluation is carried out in several successive steps, any proposal failing a threshold mark may not progress to the next step. Such proposals may immediately be categorised as rejected. panel meeting (STAGE 5) The panel will first make an overall review of the scores and opinions on each proposal given by the Consensus groups. The panel will prepare the final Evaluation Summary Reports (ESRs) for these proposals, which the Commission services will send out to each proposal coordinator, giving the outcome of the evaluators' assessment of the proposal. The outcome of the panel meeting (taking into account, if appropriate, the hearing of proposers) is the panel report recording the deliberations of the panel. It contains: • An evaluation summary report for each proposal • A list of proposals passing thresholds, if any, along with a final mark for each proposal passing the thresholds and the panel recommendations for priority order A panel discussion may be convened, if necessary, to examine and compare the consensus reports and marks in a given area, to review the proposals with respect to each other and, in specific cases (e.g. equal scores) to make recommendations on a priority order and/or on possible clustering or combination of proposals. The panel discussion may include hearings with the proposers. feedback to proposers Two to three months after submitting the proposal, the coordinator of each proposal receives the evaluation summary report (ESR). The ESR reflects the consensus reached between the independent experts, as well as the panel results (via comments and marks) on each block of criteria with overall comments (including suggestions for modifications and, in exceptional cases, possibilities for clustering/fusion with other proposals) and a final score for the proposal. The comments recorded must provide sufficient and clear reasons for the scores and in the case of proposals with high scores (e.g. there are many 5s), any recommenda- tions for modifications to the proposal, should the proposal be retained for negotiation. For proposals rejected after failing an evaluation threshold, the comments contained in the ESR may only be complete for criteria examined up to the point when the threshold was failed. TWO-STAGE SUBMISSION AND EVALUATION PROCEDURE Besides the usual one-stage submission in FP7, in which a fully-fledged proposal has to be submitted as the basis for evaluation, the European Commission may also have recourse for a two-stage submission (certain programmes in certain calls) where in the first stage an outline or an incomplete proposal will be evaluated. This outline proposal will be evaluated against a restricted set of core evaluation criteria (defined in the work programme). Only proposals passing all thresholds in the first-stage evaluation are invited to submit a full proposal to be evaluated against the full set of criteria. FiNALiSATiON OF THE EVALUATiON RANKING BY THE COMMiSSiON At this stage, the Commission prepares the final evaluation results and creates the following lists: • Ranking list of all the eligible proposals • List of the best proposals selected from the ranking list • Reserve list • List of rejected proposals Ranked list: Commission ranked list The Commission services draw up (a) final list(s) ranked, if appropriate, in priority order of all the proposals evaluated and those that pass the required thresholds. Due account is taken of the marks received and of any advice from the independent experts concerning the priority order for proposals. In drawing up the final rankings list, the Commission services also take into account the programme priorities, compatibility of the proposals with stated Community policy objectives and the available budget. In all instances, the reasons for arriving at the final ranking are fully set out in writing by the Commission services at the time of preparing the ranked list. The ranking of a proposal may foresee conditions for its negotiation, such as the adjustment of budget, content, merging with other proposals, or funding up to a certain milestone with the possibility of granting complementary funding following a subsequent call for proposals. Reserve list: Commission reserve list The list of proposals to be retained for negotiation takes into account the budget available (which is set out in the call for proposals). If necessary, a number of proposals are kept in reserve to allow for the failure of negotiations on projects, withdrawal of proposals and/or savings to be made during contract negotiation. The coordinators of any proposals held in reserve receive confirmation that negotiations with a view to preparing a contract may be offered, but only if further funding becomes available. This confirmation may also indicate a date after which no further offers of negotiations are likely to be made. When the budget for the particular call has been exhausted, any proposals remaining from the "reserve" that cannot be funded are rejected by a decision of the Commission (as set out below) and the relevant coordinators informed. Rejection: Commission rejection decisions The Commission rejection decision(s) concern(s) those proposals found to be: ineligible, out of scope, failing any of the individual thresholds for evaluation criteria or the overall threshold required to be passed by a proposal to be taken into consideration and those falling below a certain ranking. The Commission also reserves the right to reject proposals below a given rank Figure 5.1 when it is considered that the level of quality (regardless of threshold or budget availability) is not adequate, notwithstanding the independent experts' recommendations. Immediately after the rejection decision, coordinators of rejected proposals are informed in writing of the Commission's decision. The letter informing them also includes an explanation of the reasons for rejection. The fact that a proposal is rejected does not necessarily mean that it is not of good quality - only that the European Commission will not co-finance it. If the proposal is not selected for funding, there is nothing to stop partners carrying out their project anyway, or resubmitting their proposal to the European Commission at a later stage. The various steps involved in the proposal, evaluation and selection process are summarised in the Figure 5.1. CONTRACT NEGOTIATION Negotiation of proposals Following the positive evaluation of a proposal for negotiation, and a definition of what the appropriate maximum Community financial contribution for the work would be, the contact person(s) from the proposing consortium is invited to commence negotiations with the Commission for a grant agreement (contract used in FP6 has been renamed grant agreement). Sometimes the coordinator receives official notification with the ESR, but normally we have to wait one more month for official notification on whether our proposal has been rejected or whether grant agreements can commence. There is no declaration of acceptance of the project because the EU offers no guarantee of financing it until the grant agreement is signed. Information letter If the letter of notification starts with'I am pleased to inform you...' we can celebrate. This letter provides us with information on further steps with reference to procedures concerning grant agreements (what materials and documents we need; modifications to the proposal, etc.) Forms will be sent in gpf format, which can be read by a so-called 'gpf (grant agreement preparation form) editor, downloadable from CORDIS. The letter also contains the name and availability of those officials from Brussels whom we can contact during the grant agreement procedures. Requested documents and modifications In addition to the information letter and the sent Grant Agreement Preparation Forms (GPF), the proposers may receive requests for further administrative information that is necessary for the preparation of a project contract. They may be requested to take into account in the revised work programme any technical changes proposed during the evaluation. The letter of invitation may indicate a deadline by which the consortium must provide the first drafts of Annex I of the contract (revised work plan) and filled GPF, including any supporting documents. If the information is not received by that time, the Commission may terminate discussions on contract preparation and reject the particular proposal. In all cases, the Commission reserves the right to terminate negotiations at any time, and to reject the proposal, in the event of inadequate progress in negotiations. Keep the deadlines It is of utmost importance always to keep the deadlines (e.g. materials are required to be sent back within 15 days of notification). In case we have problems with deadlines, we must inform the relevant appointed officials. If it proves impossible to come to an agreement with a proposer within a reasonable deadline imposed by the Commission, negotiations on contract preparation may be terminated and the proposal rejected by Commission decision. Negotiation issues Negotiation may cover any scientific, legal or financial aspects of the proposal, based on the comments of the independent experts and any other issue that was taken into consideration at the ranking stage. The scientific aspects would cover, in particular, revisions to the work plan and adjustments to it, resulting from the evaluation and/or other requirements of the Commission. The legal aspects would cover, in particular, review of any special contractual clauses or conditions required for the project, and other aspects relating to the development of the final contract (including project start date, timing of reports - in particular certificates on financial statement and other legal requirements). The financial aspects would cover negotiation of the EC contribution, the amount of the initial pre-financing, timing of reporting and payments and, if necessary, any financial security that may be requested by the Commission. GRANT AGREEMENT PREPARATION FORMS A set of administrative forms, based on the proposal submission forms but more detailed, serves to collect administrative information on the proposal and the participants, inter alia: • Detailed information on the participants' legal status and organisation size • Declaration by each participant that it is not subject to any condition making it impossible for the Commission to sign a grant agreement (bankruptcy, fraud, grave professional misconduct, breach of other contractual obligations etc.) • Banking information of the coordinator • Simplified balance sheet and profit and loss account (only for some participants) • Costs and requested Community contribution broken down by type of activity and by partner The information in the contract preparation forms will be used to verify the legal and financial status of participants. Certain details will be used to generate a Project Fact Sheet for publication. The final version of the financial forms will be included as an annex to the grant agreement. There is a separate set of grant agreement preparation forms for each funding scheme. DESCRIPTION OF WORK The description of the work to be submitted with the grant agreement preparation forms serves as the basis for Annex I to the grant agreement (the description of the work). We have to revise Part B of the proposal based on the comments of the ESR and on any other issue that was taken into consideration at the negotiation stage. This includes, in particular, revisions to the work plan and adjustments, resulting from the evaluation and/or other requirements of the Commission. If the financial contribution of the proposal was reduced by the Commission, we should rethink our tasks and to set them to the accepted budget. If you are not able to fulfil the tasks according to the financial contribution of the Commission, discard them or expected results. This is our last chance to modify our work plan, when the grant agreement has been signed, modifications can only be made after a very strict and long process with the EU. Do not be shy; try to bargain with the officer! The role of the coordinator We have already discussed the role of the coordinator in this section; however, it is useful to repeat the lessons learned, because the coordinator is extremely important during the negotiation phase. In a consortium, the partners must designate one of the principal beneficiaries to act as project coordinator. This person is the spokesperson for the consortium and will lead the contract negotiations with the Commission. As the intermediary between participants and the Commission, the coordinator has additional rights and obligations. He/she is responsible for collecting, collating and presenting the required legal and financial information, for preparing the revised work plan with the actualised project deliverables and last but not least for the establishment of the consortium agreement. Consortium agreement Consortium agreement means an agreement the participants conclude amongst themselves for the implementation of a research activity. Such an agreement shall not affect the beneficiary's obligations to the Community and to one another arising from the grant agreement with the Commission. The agreement allows the participants to determine the detailed administrative and management provisions necessary to carry out their research project but it cannot contradict or negate the provisions established by the EC grant agreement or the rules for participation. As an FP7 project is a major commitment with financial and legal implications it is important to ensure that all the project partners have a clear understanding of the nature of the collaboration and are fully committed to it. For the project itself, this understanding will be covered by the consortium agreement, which is a legally binding agreement that sits alongside the consortium's grant agreement with the Commission. SELECTION OF PROPOSALS After the evaluation phase, the proposers that have received high marks for their proposals will negotiate with the Commission. During the negotiation, all contractual details are finalised and all necessary checks carried out. The Commission selects the proposal for funding following its internal procedures and the procedure provided for in the Specific Programme decision. Once the Commission has completed its internal financial and legal procedures, the grant agreement between the Commission and the coordinator and other beneficiaries may be signed. MODEL CONTRACT All contracts are based on a model grant agreement that has the following structure: Core model contract The core model contract defines the composition and evolution of the consortium; entry into force of the contract and duration of the project; Community financial contribution; reporting; payment modalities; and special clauses. Annex i. Annex I is a technical annex with a description of the work Annex ii. Annex II contains the General Conditions, such as implementation of the project, financial provisions and intellectual property rights Annex iii. Annex III includes special provisions related to the given funding schemes Annex iV. Annex IV consists of Form A that is consent of contractors to accede to the contract, which each partner of a consortium has to sign Annex V. Annex V is made up of Form B, which lays down conditions regarding an eventual accession of a new legal entity to the contract (only for IP or NoE) Annex Vi. Annex VI consists of Form C, the financial statement per funding scheme that is to be filled in periodically by each contractor Annex Vii. Annex VII is made up of two forms, namely Form D and E • Form D lists the terms of reference of the certificate on the financial statements • Form E has the terms of reference for the certificate on the methodology Signature, entry into force, and start of the project All participants in an FP7 project are beneficiaries and have to sign the grant agreement. However, the contract enters into force only upon signature by the coordinator and the Commission. All other beneficiaries have to sign within a timeframe specified in the grant agreement (usually 60 or 90 days), using form A (annex IV of the model grant agreement). The project start date (i.e. the date, from which work can begin and related costs can be charged to the project) is specified in the grant agreement. The start date is normally after the contract enters into force; however, it may start sooner, if so agreed. PROJECT MANAGEMENT THE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE OF THE PROJECT During the phase of proposal development, the coordinator and the partners agree on the basic management structure of the project. The devised strategy depends on the project's complexity (e.g. its budget size, number of partners, interdisciplinary nature, etc). In the negotiation phase, this structure may be modified. More importantly, at this stage the rights and responsibilities, the decision-making structure, etc. have to be discussed in more detail and the results have to be included in the Technical Annex (the revised proposal) of the contract. Still, the most detailed version of the management structure is described in the Consortium Agreement. Especially when larger projects are concerned, having a good management structure is the most crucial factor for successful implementation. In many projects, the uncertainty and/or non-performance delays stem from the fact that the partners are not aware of their tasks and responsibilities and that decisions are made in an inconsistent way. Our project should be extensively planned at the proposal stage. However, it is in the very nature of research that things will soon start to go off the planned track. Active monitoring is essential, and early decisions to take corrective action or amend plans must be agreed in order not to lose the control of the project. There are various methodologies available to support our work, as well as commercial software for project management and training courses where inexperienced partners can learn the process. The'Kick-off' meeting is a good time to establish positive working practices among all partners and set the tone for all future conduct. This important phase of the project should itself be well prepared and managed so that good practices are firmly established by consent. In FP7, consortia have an increased level of autonomy and flexibility and this is especially so for the larger funding schemes such as Large Scale Integrating Projects and Networks of Excellence . This means that they must put in place a very robust management structure that is adequate for the size and complexity of the envisaged project. It is good practice to have dedicated management staff with the right professional background as well as a management board with a degree of independence from the day-to-day project management and operation. Project management is not only about doing the work and getting paid, but is also about protecting, publishing, and utilising the foreground (knowledge in FP6) generated. Management of intellectual property and exploitation of results, both the anticipated direct results and any unexpected spin-offs, is fundamental to achieving a highly rated project. A project website, with both public and private areas, can be a useful tool both for project management and/or stimulating dissemination and using of our foreground. Project contractors must take responsibility for keeping each other in line. If one or more partners are not meeting their obligations the project must have the mechanisms to warn them, impose sanctions on them and, eventually, to reject them from the partnership. SO WHAT DO WE NEED TO AVOID THESE PROBLEMS? 1. A good coordinator 2. Management tasks 3. Build up a strong, experienced team 4. Fulfil the contractual obligations 1. A good coordinator One of the most important criteria for a successful project is a good, experienced coordinator. The coordination and the control activity of the coordinator combines and integrates the partners who are geographically and culturally apart. His/her task is to organise a kick-off meeting, prepare the consortium agreement and have it approved. He/she must monitor work and its progress, compose financial reports and, if needed, apply sanctions. Once these requirements are met, the project may enrich the list of European success stories, otherwise the worst-case scenario may take place. From the Commission's legal and financial point of view the coordinator is an organisation. The responsibility, therefore, is organisational and not personal. Imagine the coordinating person falls ill, or leaves the organisation. In such eventuality, the coordinating organisation has to continue the project without interruption (allocating new people to the project, having a good administrative background system and knowledge-sharing system, ensuring no delay even in the most difficult reporting period). 2. Management tasks Planning and organising the project a.) Communication system b.) Information and reporting system Building up the team Organising and chairing meetings Reporting and disseminating Monitoring and evaluating Financial and administrative management - fulfilling the contractual obligations Planning and organising the project No project works according to the initial plan. Therefore successful project management is a process of continuous planning and revision. Working from draft outline to final plan can help to avoid unnecessary work. Firstly, it is important to plan and structure the project as a whole with sufficient detail to prepare a realistic budget calculation. As the project moves forward, planning should be more intricate to take account of more detailed information and frameworks. Before consulting the partners at the kick-off meeting plan in advance and complete these tasks: • Structure the main activities in each work package - allocate deadlines, results and responsible persons to the activities • Which activity is the most risky/crucial? Prepare a SWOT or use other tools so it is possible to avoid unexpected problems. • Define the roles of the partners (by activity, not generally) • Define the responsibilities and rights of the work package leaders compared to the coordinator (who can decide in what questions, what kind of sanctions can apply, etc.) Communication system The ability to manage good communication within the team together with leadership is one of the key skills, of a competent project coordinator. Using new technologies for project communication can help bridge long distances. The structure of the communication system has to be planned from the outset and also estimated in the budget. Ways of communication: • Project meetings • Bilateral or transnational visits • Formal presentations • Reports, memos, notes • Faxes • Mailed letters • Telephone calls • Voice mails • E-mails • Video conferences • Virtual tools for collaboration E-mail will be probably used for regular, daily communication and sending messages. Establishing an intranet on a project web site might be helpful for working together on a specific task in a virtual working environment. Video or telephone conferences can help to strengthen the transnational teamwork by steering group meetings between team members who do not travel regularly. Other examples could easily be added. The important thing is to make a conscious decision about the medium of communication. Cultural differences In a European project, the coordinator has to take into account the management/communication methods that the partners are used to. It is advisable not to change these methods. In case of a large project, the coordinator should define common roles for communication, and partners have to agree to these (build project culture). Still, the project will be successful if the coordinator is able to understand all partners and can effectively help them, always tailoring the tools to the given organisation/person. If the partners have participated in many projects before, cultural differences should not cause problems. 3. Build a strong and experienced team Use the EC project to build capacity of your organisation - new staff can be financed by the project. A well-qualified external accountant may prove necessary. If you have a good accountant that you regularly work with, it does not necessarily mean that he/she will be good at accounting EC projects. Make sure that your accountant is experienced in EC project reporting; knows how to fulfil the national and FP7 requirements and accounting rules in the same time; knows the Financial Guide of FP7 by heart. If not, show him/her all the documents and explain the special features of EC projects. 4. Fulfil the contractual obligations Technical management tasks of the project: • Deadlines, milestones and deliverables are defined in the project proposal • Create scenarios and additional work plans to be implemented during the project lifetime • Continuous tracking and supervising of the work • Collect all information from the partners Financial management tasks of the project: • Record keeping systems - different needs by countries or by organisation types • Detailed guide for financial reporting must be given to rookies - to avoid misunderstanding or over/under estimation of the costs related to project • Development of a unified, transparent internal financial reporting system is a good idea (on-line or off-line) • Differences between the project (EC) specific and country specific accounting must be known in advance - training for partners/rookies • Commitment of the decision makers of the partners to project can be important • All project-related costs must be recorded in a separate way • Milestones/indicators should be set for expenditures • Preparing the related subcontractors for special invoice requirements Summary of management tasks: • Deadlines, Milestones and Deliverables (EC Contract) • Coordinate and monitor partners and own team • Regular communication is the key success factor • Deal with potential issues quickly and effectively - leave no loose ends • Create internal timeline for deadlines • Ensure Finance is involved (Internal and External) • Be very clear (consortium agreement) on work plans and responsibilities GENERAL ADVICE IN INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION Working in international teams has many benefits, such as bringing in fresh ideas and alterantive points of view. However, working together with people from different cultural backgrounds can also raise problems, such as misunderstandings or different expectations towards group dynamics and project management. Tolerance: Tolerance is key to intercultural communication. Not only is tolerance needed in terms of respecting people's views and beliefs but it is also for accomodating different working practices and mistakes. Simplify language: Although many of your staff will speak and use English this does not mean they are fully competent. For those that speak English as a second or third language it is best to avoid using slang, colloquialisms or phrases. Make sure people understand: Always make sure a message has been processed and understood. Although initially frustrating, it prevents from having to chase up on colleagues for missed deadlines or returning pieces of work due to incorrect format or content. When you are giving instructions, diplomatically ask to repeat them back to you. Written instructions: It is always a good idea to write instructions down to ensure that a message or request is fully understood. Information and reporting system It is important to develop an effective information, documentation and reporting system within the project. Each project member should be kept up to date on the present status of the project, the work completed, the next steps, the outcomes of national and transnational meetings, and the allocation of tasks. Information on all the planning tools, such as the structured work plan, work packages and Gantt charts should also be shared. They are in fact some of the most important and effective communication tools inside a project. Others are minutes of meetings and interim reports. This documentation and reporting system is one of the tasks that have to be carried out by the coordinator. It is also the principal tool for running and monitoring the project. A project intranet can be used to that end very effectively, although paper copies of meeting reports are still very welcome by all the members. CONSORTIUM AGREEMENT AND IpR (INTELLECTUAL pROpERTY RIGHTS) The start of the project Once we receive the signed contract from Brussels, the project may officially begin, e.g. on the first day of the month following the date of the last signature. Be careful with the exact date because only invoices/costs dated after the beginning of the project will be eligible. Sometimes it happens that the contract arrival is delayed (due to the summer holidays or other reasons), which means that by the time we receive it, the project may already be under way for one or two months. This is rarely the case, however, it is recommended to submit an inquiry to the desk officer of the project. "Real" work may begin during the kick-off meeting. The descriptions of the work packages (tasks) are included in the project as well as in the consortium agreement. It is the responsibility of the coordinator to follow up and monitor the progress of these tasks. The most difficult of these tasks is to keep the team together; especially after the pre-payment is received and transferred to the partners. It is much like managing a marriage of five to eight people from a distance. At the beginning, everyone is satisfied and motivated; worries and concerns follow later... It is the coordinator's responsibility to keep the team motivated and ensure the planned activities are implemented. The most crucial element of motivation and control is based on the well-prepared consortium agreement. It is recommended to be prepared for the worst, especially when cooperating with partners you have never worked with before. It is also advisable to involve other partners in the eventuality of a dispute between two partners or the coordinator and a partner, as it may have good impact on the partners from an educational point of view. It is in the coordinator's interest that all project related activities run smoothly, otherwise he/she is the one who has to provide an explanation to Brussels. Generally, you sign two legal contracts: the EC contract with the European Commission and the consortium agreement signed between the partners. The consortium agreement is only obligatory if so specified in the call, but it is always advisable to sign one, as it is in everybody's interest to protect their own rights. There are two main facts concerning the EC contract you have to know. Firstly, the Commission properly protects its own rights, although there are several other issues that the EC contract does not discuss in detail. Secondly, the applicable law of the contract is the Belgian law (because the Commission is situated in Brussels) so to make sure you can protect yourself if you have any problems, make sure that you have a good lawyer who is familiar with the Belgian law. Content of the EC contract Core Contract - specific to the project • Annex I. Technical Conditions (Specific to the project) • Annex II. General Conditions (standard) • Part A: Implementation of the Project • Part B: Financial Provisions • Part C: Intellectual Property Rights • Part D: Terms of reference of the certificate on the financial statement • Part E: Terms of reference for the certificate on the methodology • Other annexes Annex I is the revised proposal: The main difference between the original and revised proposal is not just that the Technical Annex is reworked based on the evaluators comments, but is, as part of the contract, legally binding to all partners. The coordinators are responsible for ensuring all the partners are aware of the content and that they fulfil their obligations. If any problems arise during the implementation, the contract will always be referred to. General Conditions are not specific to a project but to FP7. This means that for all FP7 projects the same general conditions apply. Therefore, this part should be carefully read by all partners and especially by the coordinator. Certain issues are not specified by this part but should be detailed in the consortium agreement. Subjects of the EC contract discussed in detail Subjects of the EC contract NOT discussed in detail Advance payment Financial issues Commission's rights Amendment to the contract Involvement of new contractor IPR Partners' rights, role, and obligation Financial obligations towards each other - guarantees Project management Figure 4 Consortium agreement "The Consortium Agreement determines the purposes and expectations of the contractors, and the law and obligations and relations amongst them..." There is no standard form for consortium agreements; however, some guidelines and samples can be downloaded from CORDIS and the IPR Helpdesk site, which can help us create our own. Partners have considerable contractual freedom, developing a general civil contract (being careful that the contract meets the national standards of the chosen applicable law) of any European law. We can choose Belgian law, but Hungarian or French would also be acceptable. Of course, all partners have to agree to it. The advantage of using the Belgian law as the applicable law is that later there will be no conflicts between the CA and the EC contract. Choosing the national law of the coordinator ensures that the lawyers of the coordinating organisation can react to any legal issue fast and without uncertainty. The agreement is important for all partners. The coordinator has to make sure that each partner agrees to the content of the CA. Do not forget it is not enough to specify the applicable law; the competent jurisdiction has to be stated as well. Pertaining to the previous example, the Court of the city where the coordinator is based provides a certain advantage. The consortium agreement (CA) should specify at least the following • The internal organisation of the consortium • Distribution of the Community contribution • Responsibilities • Towards each other • Towards the Commission • Frequent Problems • Weak Performance of a Contractor - legal consequences • Financial Guarantee • The settlement of internal disputes • Additional rules • Dissemination and use • Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Common mistakes made during CA development • Unprofessionally written • Applicable law - if you insist on the Belgian law, get a specialised lawyer in this law • Too dogmatic, no flexibility • No time to discuss (usually formulated before the kick off meeting) • Too pro lead partner, difficult for others to deliver • Too regulated, too many sanctions • Roadmap and consequences for failure or withdrawal not laid out properly • IPR, TIP business plans not laid out properly (use annexes) IPR issues The"Rules for Participation" introduce the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) regime that will govern projects financed by the Seventh Framework Programme. This basic regime is designed to be implemented and supplemented by the Model Contract prepared by the European Commission, which will serve as a model for the contracts between the European Community and the future participants in FP7 projects. The Participation Rules, the contracts, and consortium agreements establish (contractual) rights and duties concerning the execution of a FP7-Project, but they do not replace legally binding regulations as stated in the Intellectual Property Laws. The existence and allocation of rights is, therefore, not only determined by the Participation Rules/Contracts/Consortium agreements, but also by the general Intellectual Property Law. Ownership of Foreground: As a rule, ownership resides with the contractor who generates foreground (with the exception of the specific SME actions). However, if no joint ownership agreement is reached, then a default regime is used in which each of the joint owners may grant, after having given prior notice, non-exclusive licences to third parties (without right to sub-licence) and payment of a fair and reasonable compensation to the other joint owners is required. Transfer of Ownership: To simplify transfer of ownership to a specifically identified party (for example to the mother company or an affiliate of a participant); the participants may agree that for such a transfer, no prior notification is necessary. In FP7, prior notice to the Commission before the transfer is only required in the case of grant agreement. protection of foreground If a participant does not protect foreground, then it may be transferred to another participant or the Commission may protect the foreground. If the owner of foreground does not protect it, transfer to another participant in the project is now explicitly mentioned. The participants are usually in a better position to evaluate the results, seek protection where necessary, and use the results, than the Commission is. The Commission would be offered the option to protect the foreground in cases where other participants do not take up that ownership or where the original owner does not offer them the option (for example, because they are competitors). Patents Copyright Law Design Patent Trade Marks Subject of Inventions Original works Designs and models Distinctive signs protection (Technical solutions) (Aesthetic Creations) (Aesthetic Creations) Legal Requirements Novelty Inventive Expression in particular form Novelty Originality Distinctive Power Step Originality Individual character Useful Function Graphical Representative Application Yes No (in principle) yes (in principle) yes Duration of Max. 20 Lifetime of Max. 20 years 10 years protection years creator, +70 years National National National Design National Trade Patents Copyright Laws Patent Marks European European Design European Trade Patent Patent Marks Community Patent Intern. Registration Intern. Registrations (planed) PCT- Application Competent National No registration National Offices National Offices Authorities Patent OHIM OHIM Offices WIPO WIPO European Patent Office WIPO Figure 7.1 DISSEMINATION A participant may publish or allow the publication of (in whatever medium) foreground it owns or foreground obtained during work in connection with cooperative or collective research projects provided this does not affect the protection of that foreground. Prior notice of any dissemination activity must be given only to the participants (unless foreground is not protected or transferred). Any of the participants may object if they believe their legitimate interests in relation to its foreground could suffer disproportionate harm. The obligation to notify the Commission was removed as the other participants are in a much better place to deal with such dissemination intentions. Use and dissemination The submission of final reports does not end the obligations of a consortium. There is an obligation to use and disseminate the results of the project. Participants in projects, as well as the Community, will use the foreground they own and that has arisen from direct or indirect actions, or they will assure the use of this foreground by third parties, in accordance with the interests of the participants concerned. If dissemination of the foreground does not adversely affect its protection or its use, the participants shall ensure that it is disseminated within a period laid down by the Community. In the event the participants fail to fulfil relevant obligations, the Commission itself will undertake the dissemination of the foreground in a detailed and verifiable manner, in accordance with the rules for participation and the contract. Particular account shall be taken of the following: a) The need to safeguard intellectual property rights b) The advantages to be derived from the swift dissemination of knowledge, in order to avoid duplication of research efforts and in order to create synergies between indirect actions c) The principle of confidentiality d) The legitimate interests of the participants THE KICK-OFF MEETING Organisation of the kick-off meeting is the coordinator's task and as the first official meeting in the project, one is always required. It is recommended to hold the meeting in the first month of the project (and certainly no later than the third month) in order to clarify and specify the implementation of each task with the responsible partner. Usually, in EC projects this is the first time we meet the consortium partners in person. Remember, making a good first impression is very important for successful future collaboration. The costs of the kick-off meeting can be allocated to the project (eligible costs); in many cases, however, the pre-payment does not arrive by this time, which means that the partners should pre-finance these expenses. It is the coordinator's task to prepare the programme and select the best location for the meeting. Make sure to clarify all the questions during the meeting, including the approval and signature of the internal consortium agreement. AIMS OF THE KICK-OFF MEETING • Agreement on project's scopes • Allocation of tasks • Scopes - results - deadlines • Team building • Evaluation and monitoring • Financial issues • Sign/Discuss consortium agreement KICK-OFF MEETING AGENDA: WHAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE KICK-OFF MEETING AGENDA? A. Introduction of the partners: Introduction of each partner - relationship between the partners B. General introduction that covers the description of the organisation, the reason being in the project (expertise, tasks, motivation) C. Detailed introduction: Go through the main parts of the contract, discuss the work to be done, and clarify the definitions in order to avoid future misunderstandings. Detailed assessment of critical issues: During the meeting, many issues and questions can be raised. The most critical ones should be discussed in detail (CA, ethical problems (where applicable), etc.). As a coordinator, your responsibility is to handle sensitive issues (sanctions for non-performance; IPR rights; financial issues generally, allocation of payment - keeping 5-10% for the coordinator, etc). Administration, internal monitoring, and decision-making structure: What are the rights of the coordinator, how wide is his/her freedom in management? What sanctions can be agreed on for non-performance? What are the rights and obligations of WP leaders? Is the management structure flexible enough? In the case of big projects, is it complex enough? Legal issues (IPR, consortium agreement): One of the most crucial elements of the kick-off meeting is signing the internal consortium agreement (CA). The coordinator is in charge of preparing the agreement, which should also be agreed upon by the partners in advance, as the 2- or 3-day meeting would not suffice to discuss all relevant issues. The CA must include - depending on the project - the tasks to be implemented by each partner, deadlines, detailed descriptions, and responsibilities. This could come in handy in should a legal dispute arise. Deliverables: deadline - deliverable - responsible person: Based on the work plan it is advisable to create an internal monitoring system with internal deadlines for the deliverables and other reporting obligations appointing always a responsible person for each. The minutes of the meeting: Includes the following main information: • Who was present • What was discussed • Critical points, questions, conclusions • A table with detailed activities, timeline, results, person hours, links to other tasks Basics (clarifying the project concept): In cases where the partners do not understand the concept, it may happen that they work for months with a wrong strategy and they miss the final scope, so their work would be useless, although still eligible (it would not terminate the contract). WP leader's presentation: Activities - timeline - resources - partner's roles and responsibilities: Give some freedom to WP leaders to organise their work as they would like to (as long as it is in line with the project). All WP leaders have to present their view on the work: how they allocate the tasks, costs, and time between the partners. In casee where the project is too big, separate the WPs according to their time of implementation and do not introduce those that are at the end of the project. Alternatively, you can create small groups, where only those partners are present that participate in the given WP. Communications and IT solutions: Agree on the date and method of communication with the partners. How frequently do you meet personally? Is it possible to make conference calls, video conference calls, or online meetings? Summary: The kick-off meeting is crucial for the whole project. At the meeting, all content and administrative matters are discussed and settled; it is the beginning of the teamwork. reporting and deliverables REPORTING The European Commission must be given the opportunity to follow the implementation of the project, as it is stated in the proposal, and monitor its compliance with the requirements and conditions required for the provision of EU financial support. The submission of reports and related deliverable documents, and their evaluation are indispensable tools for project implementation and monitoring on behalf of Brussels. For this reason, the partners, through the project coordinator, are required to prepare and submit periodic reports (min. 1 per year) and a final report at the end of the project together with a verification of the eligible costs. These reports must be submitted annually and with the"Final Report" handed in a few months prior to the official project completion. These reports are meant to provide an overall picture to the given Directorate General in Brussels about the project's progress, its relation to the original plans and the approved ones, as well as the review of incurred costs and their eligibility. The reports will be assessed by the experts of the Commission according to the contractual conditions. These experts will decide, in light of the report, whether the project will be further supported according to the original conditions, or modifications on the part of the project partners are required. New information or technology development might force the consortium, or the Commission itself, to suggest modifications in the realisation or implementation of the project. Any modifications initiated by the partners require the approval of the Commission. Modifications requested after the signing of the agreement must be submitted and authorised in writing "in good time before they are due to take effect, and in all cases at latest one month before the closing date of the action, except in cases duly substantiated by the beneficiary and accepted by the Commission." Otherwise, unforeseen expenditure in the beneficiary's initial budget cannot be considered eligible and will not be taken into consideration in the final calculation of the grant. This applies to transfers of over 10% of the expenditure. Reports must include the following items: • Technical and professional progress • Financial reports broken down to partners • Completed deliverables (including the consortium agreement) - in case it is not in English (for instance a guidebook in the coordinator's language), it is recommended to attach a summary in English • Short publishable executive summary • Other project related information The preparation of reports and their submission to Brussels - apart from a few exceptions - is the task and responsibility of the coordinator. A good coordinator involves its partners and makes them prepare the relevant chapters and statements. It also provides a good opportunity for the coordinator to examine how each partner performs. In case questions or problems emerge with respect to the preparation of the report, project partners can turn to the appointed officers. Following the submission of the report, the Commission either accepts it or sends it back to the coordinator for further revision or the provision of further information. After the submission, it usually takes 1-3 months to process the report in Brussels. Once the financial part is approved, we can expect the next pre-payment (this also motivates the partners to take an active part in the preparation of the report...) or the final payment. Normally, the EU withholds 15-20% of the funding until the end of the project. ACCOUNTING SYSTEM The coordinator is financially responsible for the entire operation, including for all partners. The coordinator and the project partners must establish effective management and financial systems so that the costs of the operation can be clearly identified and allocated to the respective partners. It is the responsibility of the coordinator to ensure that the financial and accounting statements drawn up by his partners are reliable and that each partner applies all obligations relating to the operation's management. Also the partners' expenses have to be audited. It is the responsibility of the coordinator to ensure that at each stage of the audit process the auditor has all the necessary information at his disposal in order to complete a full and accurate audit. The coordinator and its partners are at all times obliged to retain for audit purposes all files, documents and data about the operation for a maximum period of five years after the final payment of the Commission. This implies that the coordinator shall ensure that all the information and (original) documents are also available from all project partners. It is up to the coordinator to decide either to keep all (original) documents of all project partners or to agree on a solution to have access at any time to the documents concerned at project partner level. The coordinator is also obliged to guarantee that both the coordinator and all the partners fulfil these duties. It is very important that the coordinator should not send in any individual copies or original invoices unless specifically requested by the Commission. The invoices must be kept by the coordinator and the partner(s) for a period of 5 years after the last payment by the European institutions and should be made available on request. Figure 9.1 One of the key factors in the success of the project implementation is having an internal control system reasonably capable of guaranteeing that the operation is complying with the legal and financial obligations. We have to prove that receipts and payments for the action are separately identifiable within the financial and accounting system from other activities undertaken by the organisation. All the receipts and payments have to be accurately recorded in the operation's accounting system; assets have to be correctly accounted for and amounts correctly reflected in demands for payment; a necessary audit trail has to exist for all activities, providing evidence in the form of contracts, invoices, and payment records. In case of staff costs, direct costs, overheads and in-kind contributions necessary evidence has to be kept in a form of timesheets, listings of costs or formula descriptions and cost calculations. Cost keeping system: • Must include all project related cost and the requested details (seller details, invoice no., dates, amounts, VAT, unit, purpose, justification, cost category) • The country specific and EC specific rules must be in line! • It must be up-to-date! Upload the new costs and invoices frequently for cost efficiency • Handle it separately from other company-related costs if the organisation is running more than one project, it is very important to keep the invoices for each one separate, thus preventing from falling into DOUBLE FUNDING. To be able to identify all invoices by project, you need a good system that enables you to identify the place of your invoices in the EC and national systems - thus you will have no problems reporting your costs to the EC and the National Tax Authority. During the project, worksheets should be kept for each project and each person working on it. If one person is working on more projects, this data should be kept on one sheet in order to avoid possible doubling and ensure greater transparency of funding, work allocation, and overall project(s) monitoring. Timesheets must be maintained during the course of the action showing the names of those involved, their roles, the number of rates per hour, day or month. These sheets should be validated by signature of the persons involved, counter-signed by the director of the organisation, and retained just like invoices. The personal costs of the staff are only eligible when subject to a work contract. All cost items included in the calculation must be eligible for financing and clearly documented. There is no predefined form of timesheets. Usual personnel time-recording practices should suffice provided they can show actual personnel involvement in the project. When no time-recording practices exist, a suitable timesheet system should be chosen and applied. Sam pte Timesheet Title ol Contract Acronym C^uritrcift Nupiiber Pdrlner Pc^K^on C-^rryirtQ nut Th^ wnrk C^qtnitUt, Ti^hnkivo____) undersiqned oerdfiei having devoted f > touri in the Mtnth (^ Oistrliution of these hour; fbv yorkpoikaot) Year 20CQ I 20041 2005 I 2006 I 200?! I HQrtUi I Jan I F*t I Mar I Apr I Way I Jul I July I Amj I Seetl Ortl Hov I D*: I n.iv 1 t t 4 1. i 0 4 U )) 19 i« M 14 ir. O It i? Jt ti S3 u M f* a M J4 H 3) HOU"i WP Sign*Mr*C( 01* MrtVinj 4UC m* wOrtt 44>**tifiCiHuM Iv.lmf! SiqwifurcL D.Tff:! Pl.tcc Nanlt! Siqrt^TLire! Q.jTl: ! Pl.nrf: Figure 9.2 Transparency of accounting In order that the European institutions may proceed with the payments, it is important that the coordinator: 1. Establishes a separate bank account (to allow easy establishment of a financial statement with interests generated) (it is not obligatory in all cases) 2. Is able to claim a statement from the bank on the interest rate applied for the period of the pre-financing and keeps separate accounting for the project detailing sources of funding, expenditures, and interests generated Some good advice: • Keep continuous accounting concerning the expenses with relation to the project • Only costs occurring with respect to the project are eligible and can be financed • For subcontracting works search for many offers; it is strongly recommended to make contracts all the time • For personal costs, it is advisable to keep records that show how many hours and on which day the particular persons worked on the project. It is also important to follow the contribution of people in proportion to the original work allocation Activity report: Periodic and final reports The coordinator, on behalf of the consortium, must submit to the Commission, by electronic means and by mail, within 45 calendar days following the end of each reporting period the following periodic and final reports: • Periodic and final activity reports • Periodic and final management reports • Form C (Financial statement per activity) provided by each contractor for that period or the whole project • Report on the distribution made between contractors of the Community financial contribution during that period or made after the end of the project • Any supplementary reports required by any Annex to the contract Periodic activity (technical) report A periodic activity report contains an overview of the activities carried out by the consortium during a certain period; a description of progress toward the objectives of the project; a description of progress towards the milestones and deliverables; and the identification of any problems encountered and corrective action taken. An updated plan for using and disseminating the foreground shall be included as a separate part of this report. Periodic activity (technical) reports contain • Front page • Publishable executive summary • Project objectives and major achievements during the reporting period • Work package progress of the period • Consortium management • Dissemination plan • Other issues Technical report The activity report is equal to the technical-professional Progress Report, where the achieved results must be summarised, as well as their relation to the original project proposal (original). Such instances occur in almost every project. From the planning phase to implementation, almost two or three years go by and changes may occur in the mean time beyond the competence or control of the consortium. Generally, such instances are rare, yet a detailed explanation for the reasons of modifications must be provided. The progress of the given work phases must be presented and for the completed ones, deliverables must be attached along with the Final Report. deliverable A deliverable is a document related to one or more work phases, i.e. the results of work "delivered" to Brussels. A deliverable may be a guidebook, database, technical description, marketing strategy, etc. We may also specify in the project proposal if the given deliverable shall be public (available for everyone), restricted to certain target groups (small and medium-sized enterprises) or confidential (available to partners and the Commission only). Deadlines for deliverables defined in the original project proposal must be always met. A detailed description of project management and the presentation of dissemination activities should also be part of the technical chapter. Generally, dissemination activities play a very important role from a Brussels point of view. Make sure to update the project website with new information, because the Commission desk officer is likely to visit the site on a regular basis. In case information about a meeting or conference is provided, do attach pictures, invitation letters, and minutes of the meeting. The presentation of the planned activities for the next 6-12 months is a vital part of the reports (except the Final Report), as is the justification of any delays. Make sure to describe the activities of the next period in detail, and present a list of planned deliverables as well. It is also important - in case we had promised Interim Reports in the original project proposal (related to the given deliverables) - to send these reports to Brussels. Once the reports are submitted and assessed in Brussels, it may be possible that amendments are also requested to a certain deadline. PROJECT CLOSURE - FINAL REPORTING The following reports must be submitted at the end of the project: • Periodic reports for the last reporting period • Final reports to be provided covering the whole duration of the project • Certificate on the financial statements (ex-Audit certificate) Final reports (upon project closure): In addition to the periodic reports for the last reporting period, the consortium has to submit the following final reports to the Commission after the end of the project. These final reports summarise the project's activities over its full duration. Publishable final activity report • A final management report (including Cost Statements) • A final plan for using and disseminating the knowledge • A final report on the distribution of the Community's contribution • Supplementary final reports • Other data requested by the Commission I acknowledge receipt of the additional infcnnalion to your Final Report. The additional information provided generally clarifies the issues raised in arur previous correspondent ea. Technical report: I nole that measurements are not obligatory during the plant testing period bul only in the fina J stage of (he testing. However, J understand that you have requested a sampling mid-June. Please provide me and the External Monitcrijig Team with the official results of the analysis as soou as (hey sre available. Please also explain tow these results compare to the requirements of the national and EU legislation. Financial report: The final payment of the grant under subjecl will soon be transferred to your account. This payment bas been calculated as fhllows: Total costs declared: 802.1.66,78 € Less ineligible expenses': 10.003.A7 £ Total acceptable costs: 792.163,31 € Bligibte costs after depreciation: 767.263,31C Figure 9.3 Management report The management report provides a justification of the major costs incurred and resources deployed by each contractor, linking them to activities implemented by each contractor and explaining their necessity. Management reports contain: • Front page: Explanatory note on any major cost items such as important equipment, travel, etc; a tabular overview of budgeted costs and actual costs; a tabular overview of budgeted person-months and actual person-months • Cost statements • Certificate on the financial statements • Summary financial report Financial report The financial report (so called cost statement) is an organic part of the annual reporting process. These cost statements include information on the received EC contribution by each partner and also on what these funds were spent. As such, it can be assessed if they are in line with the originally approved budget. Each partner is responsible for the use and appropriate allocation of the EC contribution and its documentation and accountancy. The partner prepares the cost statement in its national currency; the coordinator shall summarise it and convert it to Euro. The exchange rate - in case it is not defined otherwise - is always effective as of the first day of the month when the report is submitted. Another practice is to use the exchange rate effective on the day when the expenses occur (the invoice was paid). The exchange rate applied must be indicated in the form provided. Actual exchange rates can be downloaded from http://www.ecb. int/stats/eurofxref/ and/or can be found in the Official Journal. Apart from a few exceptions (invoices of sub-contractors and contracts), invoices and warranties should not be attached to the financial reports. This process is different and often unusual for Central Eastern European participants. Naturally, invoices must be kept and handled separately for future audits, but they do not need to be attached to the financial report. The coordinator may also request partners to attach copies of the invoice for the cost statement. The fact that invoices do not need to be attached (because the Commission "trusts" us) makes the process of financial assessment much faster, which also means that we receive the interim or final payment earlier. The cost statements The cost statement must be in line with the financial chapters of the contract. 10-20% shifting of costs within a particular cost category is allowed, above that a modification of the contract is required. Reported costs must be: • Actual, economic and necessary for the implementation of the project • Determined in accordance with the usual accounting principles of the contractor • Incurred during the duration of the project It is required to name the persons working on the project, for each partner. Time allocated to the project has to be provided in table format, in months (see table below), figures have to be compared to those given in the proposal and alterations have to be justified. Participant n°/short name WP1 WP2 WP3 WP4 WP5 WP6 Total person months P1 25 12 9,5 15,2 0 22 83,7 P2 0 0 5 0 15 2 22 P3 0 16 0 0 2 2 20 P4 0 10 0 1,5 0 2 13,5 P5 0 30 2,5 0 0 5 37,5 P6 0 10 0 1,5 0 2 13,5 P7 0 0 26,5 3,5 0 7,2 37,2 P8 0 3,6 18,4 0 4 10 36 P9 0 2,3 0 13 0 4,2 19,5 P10 0 5,3 34 0 0 9,8 49,1 Total 25 89,2 95,9 34,7 21 66,2 332 Figure 9.4 Costs have to be divided into cost categories. In the cost statement, only the costs defined eligible by the contract can be reported. Eligible cost categories in the reporting period are: personnel costs, travel and subsistence, subcontracting, durable equipment, consumables, other costs, overhead costs, coordination costs. Eligibility of expenditure • Only costs based on real expenditure maybe reported • Personnel costs: Detailed documentation of the reported staff cost must be available (list of hours accounted for the operation, clear calculation of the internal rate of staff costs; staff costs should reflect usual market rates of the respective Member State) • Overhead costs have to be based on real costs; calculation must be documented internally • Travel and major investments/purchases must be justified Non-eligible costs: • Any identifiable indirect taxes, including VAT or duties • Interest owed • Provisions for possible future losses or charges • Exchange losses • Costs declared, incurred or reimbursed in respect of another Community project • Cost related to return on capital • Debt and debt service charges • Excessive or reckless expenditure • Any cost that does not meet the conditions established in the contract Report on the distribution of the Community contribution Within 60 calendar days of receipt of the outstanding balance, the coordinator must submit to the Commission a report on the distribution of the Community's financial contribution between contractors. DISSEMINATION All reports have to include a separate section on the use and dissemination of foreground. It has three main parts. One is the protection and use of the foreground that has commercial value. We have to declare in the consortium agreement, who will use the foreground, how the others can benefit from this, etc. For detailed information on IPR issues turn to IPR Helpdesk Network. The second part is an overview table of past and future activities plus a description of each major activity. The third part contains the publishable results. Dissemination means that concrete results and/or products of a project should be available for use also outside the partnership. For this reason, dissemination of results plays a central role in a project and a dissemination plan and strategy is an essential part of project application. Among other things, dissemination involves: • Distribution of information about the products and results of a project • Collection of good practices and sharing of experiences • Making sure that others can benefit from the products and results • Commercialisation of products In practice, dissemination can mean: • Distribution of information about the project in the beginning of a project • Testing and presenting the results and products with a view to receive feedback during a project • At the end of the project, securing the distribution of created products through own organisation or by using other channels Dissemination must be planned so as to support the project's impact in each partner country. There is no universal model for dissemination. The most relevant target groups, means, and channels of dissemination must be taken into account in the dissemination plan, but do not make it too complicated. Even small measures can be effective when the target group and the forum are well chosen. Funds should be reserved for dissemination; for example, for producing brochures or creating a web site. It is often necessary to include dissemination expenses in personnel and production costs. Anticipating dissemination activities is often difficult, but it helps drawing up the budget. Anticipated activities can be realised only if enough funds are reserved in the budget. Making an effective Dissemination Plan Formulating a proper dissemination strategy is essential for an effective dissemination campaign. For a successful implementation of the strategy, it is necessary to come up with detailed planning of specific activities. This will facilitate the realisation of the strategy and ensure that it will be implemented with the greatest possible efficiency. It must never be forgotten that dissemination actions should cover the whole period of project implementation, therefore the planning must clarify dissemination goals and targets by or at the start of the project and not at the end of it. Major aspects of an effective dissemination strategy: • Definition of goals and objectives of each dissemination action - what do we want to achieve with the particular action? • Definition of the target groups - who, what groups, beneficiaries do we address with particular dissemination actions? • Definition of context - what are the main characteristics of the target group, and what are their relations to the specific activities implemented under the project? • Definition of content - what is the necessary information we want to convey to the target groups? • Definition of most optimal channels - what are the best channels to convey the information to the target groups? • Definition of resources - what are the required resources from the project partner's perspective to ensure the dissemination of deliverables and what kind of tools are suitable from the perspective of the target groups? Feedback: It is very important that the success of the various implementation activities is measured in some way. On the one hand, the target group must be provided with the possibility to share its reflections, on the other, the partners must design a method for feedback collection. Raising awareness: It is also very important that the target groups learn about each prominent achievements and actions during the implementation of the project immediately after it is realised. The partners must formulate a strategy for information provision and storage, and for enabling the target groups to access this information. predicting problems: The dissemination strategy therefore must predict barriers and prepare appropriate actions to either avoid or neutralise gaps incurred. Dissemination of good practices Dissemination of experiences and practices as the project's output must favourably meet the concept of shared knowledge, e.g. the know-how (organisation of workshops and conferences, the processes of the project, working methods etc.). The consortium itself is the primary target group but the results are also disseminated to other EU projects, projects of other EU programmes etc. Dissemination levels, materials and channels are the following:5 Levels 1. Dissemination within the consortium 2. Dissemination within the partner group 3. Dissemination within a geographical region 4. Dissemination in different business, economic and industrial sectors 5. Dissemination on national level 6. Dissemination on international level Materials • Web-pages of the project: Essential (all relevant information, events, deliverables, etc. must be presented on the project website) • Brochures • Press releases • Articles on the project procedure • Presentation transparencies • Posters • Filing the information material channels • Electronic information (internet, e-mail) • The press • Radio and television • Participation in various events • Organising international conferences • Organising a conference as a part of the dissemination of project results MONITORING AND EVALUATING In the previous chapter, we learned how to write reports and the most relevant issues to be considered when preparing one. As such, the project management system must be output-oriented, as the European Commission shall place major emphasis on monitoring the results. Both technical and financial monitoring must be well established, otherwise the Commission can consider the consortium performing insufficient. Is so, it may: • R eject the reports submitted and request the consortium to complete the work foreseen within a deadline, established by the Commission. Reports and deliverables shall be re-submitted once completed; • Approve the reports and deliverables but subject the project to re-negotiation. In this case, the Commission may suspend the project. • Terminate the contract • In order to avoid the above, we must take into account the following: • Continuously monitoring the finances and the budget • Continuously monitoring the management system 5 The following taken from: http://eutrainingsite.net/ • Establish an effective dissemination plan • Up to date administration system Before we further analyse the above actions, we need to point out the differences between evaluation, monitoring and audit. EVALUATION: Assessment of the efficiency, effectiveness, impact, relevance and sustain-ability of aid policies and actions. MONITORING: Ongoing analysis of project progress towards achieving planned results with the purpose of improving management decision making. AUDIT: Assessment of legality and regularity of project expenditure and income i.e. compliance with laws and regulations and with applicable contractual rules and criteria; whether project funds have been used efficiently and economically, in accordance with sound financial management and whether project funds have been used effectively, i.e. for purposes intended. Audit is primarily having a financial management focus. Ueflnlllon of monitoring, evaluation and audit MuiuluriiKj & rcyuliir ruvlcw T viih i Atlnn Audit VJhO? Intrriiat pnunarji'inrnl n?iptmilljllil^ nil (I^MIIV hHWTVT^T^ external iiiputv { eb I ECtiM-liv) InruTiiHi ex(fm«l InpuU When* UngaEiig Ptriodlt mirj tvmr, tomplPTHiii. "s ddsL rmgnl n a flinl upon r:< iiino (jfjlein rt«liv»)i fO'iiplntinn Why/ ClirLh [iriiarni, tflhr rn m I'D m drtlttn, upd«h' plan: 1 risni Ihraad Intent .11 h | p 1 i i aIjIii Ed nlhrr |iriii|r.MrMnr,i/|irii jmK ml .1". .111 incnil tu |>iilh: v ri'vnLvj Prr^idr DLLDuntafailltV F'muJdr .b-.iisr.bmrH' .111 nmiL.iliiliry [n ^liikrliiiNrrr^ I'rHiynk" ri'LainniLLinlatiuiii 11.'r ini |*ru¥ i; nit irt. «jl mm'ill And tulur* pnHecfs 1 Ink to InqlrAmn oh|ect Ive hierarchy Input*, ."crliviti-r-<, rr^bilM Ht tulit. [HI T 111'.', riVH'roll ubirciivr (A link Ldik lo nl;vtnc() ! inputs, in rivl1l*h And remrts Figure 9.5 THE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Well-established collaboration is of utmost importance from a long-term sustainability point of view. An unsuccessful international project may even undermine the reputation of the partners. The management of an EU funded research project is very much different from a business-based project. The guides to be used are not always clear, constant modifications are applied to them and sometimes it is quite difficult to handle the European administration. Complex tasks have to be solved by each partner separately as well. For this reason, the system to be worked out should be flexible because continuous problems and possible conflicts may require different solutions. Another relevant point is to determine the "extent" of participation of the given organisation in a project and its control. The project is being well managed if the following conditions are fulfilled: • Inputs are being provided on time and within budget • Activities are being implemented on time • Relevant information on project achievements/results is being collected and used, and is accessible to stakeholders in an appropriate format and language • Operational plans and budgets are reviewed and updated on a regular basis (including risk management plans), and reflect lessons learned from experience on the ground • Transparency and accountability systems (including financial management systems and independent audit) are adequate and effective in identifying/deterring corrupt practices internal monitoring: One of the key aspects of successful project management is to create an internal monitoring system within the consortium that is capable to assess the progress of the project and identify the problems occurred during its implementation. An effective monitoring system can ensure a high-level review of the project status and the technical progress made. There are two tasks that are strongly advised to be carried out at the internal monitoring of the project: monitoring and regular reviews. Monitoring and regular reviews of project progress should involve key stakeholders with direct responsibilities for implementation on the ground (i.e. the project management team). Monitoring Monitoring means a continuous or regular surveillance or measurement of programmes or implementation of a project in combination with comparison of this information against established progress standard data. Monitoring and evaluation are an integral part of modern day-to-day management of projects. Results and performa nce indicators establish the basis for a modern monitoring and evaluation system. The information provided through monitoring is used by the project management to identify and solve implementation problems and assess progress. jrting Regular y review Implementation & monitoring Implementation & monitoring Figure 9.6 Project management must closely follow the progress of the project in terms of expenditure, resource utilisation, implementation of activities, delivery of results, and ability to deal with problems arisen. This can be provided via monitoring, a systematic and continuous collection, analysis, and use of management information for the support of effective decision-making. Proper monitoring can point out strengths and weaknesses in project implementation and enable responsible personnel to deal with problems, improve performance, build on successes and adapt to changing circumstances. Monitoring can enable the project coordinator to follow the various stages and steps of the project in detail and to provide an actual analysis and performance feedback at any time. Monitoring should focus on collecting and analysing information on: • Physical progress (input, activities carried out and results achieved) and their quality • Financial progress (budget and expenditure) • Feedback from the target groups and the partners as well • Reactions to problems originating either from project implementation or from the partners' feedback Monitoring is an internal management responsibility, although it may be complemented by "external" monitoring inputs. These external monitoring inputs can be useful in providing objective verification of results, additional technical advice and a'large-scale' view for senior management. The use of Log-frames and implementation plans are highly recommended as practical tools that directly support effective management, monitoring, and review. Reviews are used to facilitate the sharing of information for collective decision-making purposes and for initiating modifications in project progress. The reviews offer the opportunity for project partners to analyse the information obtained through the monitoring processes, enabling the formulation and introduction of necessary actions against Review problems emerged during implementation. Regular reviews provide the opportunity to address issues in more depth, from the basic aspects of progress reports to any other official action that needs to be taken. Regular reviews may be conducted at different levels within the project management structure, at different times, and with varying frequencies. However, the main point is that they should be regular (pre-planned) and should have a clear agenda and structure. The characteristics of an effective internal monitoring system (coordinator) • The collection of the data has to be regular (quarterly or even monthly internal reporting helps a lot) • Format of the administrative report has to be harmonised • Monitoring has to focus on the main achievements (milestones and deliverables), the manpower situation and the budget (do not lose the point) • The project management has to control the process and regularly update the procedures if needed CERTIFICATE ON FINANCIAL STATEMENTS As mentioned above, the Seventh Framework Programme invoices and warrants should not be attached to the financial reports. It is, essentially, a trust relationship between the EU and the contracting partners: it is advisable not to abuse it. Mismanagement of funding can result not only in the repaying of support but also, in the complete exclusion of the 'culprit' from further EU support schemes. The EU has special means of checking the financial documents concerning the project and these is the certificate on the financial statements and the audit. A certificate of the financial statements is required from each contractor at some point during the life of the project to certify the costs claimed. In most contracts it is provided by the contractor's own external auditor (or in the case of public bodies it may be provided by a competent public officer). It should be clarified that the certificate is a justification of the costs claimed under the project. It is not an audit the Commission may launch at any time, up to five years after the end of the project. The submission of a certificate does not waive this right of the Commission to carry out audits. The Commission has the right to conduct its own audits, either by using its own services or any representative authorised by it. The certificate can be delivered by: • An external auditor (the external auditor must be independent from the contractor) • A public competent officer, for public bodies, research organisations, higher and secondary education establishments, (the selected public officer must not be involved in the process of Financial Statement per Activity (Form C)). "A contractor that is a public body may opt for a competent public officer to provide a certificate on the financial statements, provided that the relevant national authorities have established the legal capacity of that competent public officer to audit that public body." A list of independent auditors and information about audits in Member States and candidate countries can be found at the following internet address: www.fee.be/mem-bers/countries.htm. A certificate per contractor is always provided at the time of submission of periodic reports and always covers one or more reporting periods. However, it is not necessarily required for each reporting period. New flexible rules • The certificate on the financial statements is mandatory whenever the cumulative amount of interim payments and balance payments made to a participant is equal to 375,000 € or more. It is not compulsory to submit a certificate on the financial statements if the EC support is less than 25,000 €. • If the duration of the supported project is not longer than 2 years, only one certificate on the financial statements is requested from the participant at the end of the project. • Certificate on the financial statements is not required for indirect actions entirely reimbursed by means of lump sums or flat rates. The general purpose of the certificate is to give the Commission reasonable assurance that eligible costs (and, if relevant, the receipts) charged under the project are calculated and claimed by the contractors in accordance with the relevant legal and financial provisions of the FP7 legal texts, including contractual provisions. A certificate justifies that the total eligible costs declared by the contractor comply with the following cumulative conditions: • they are determined according to the relevant cost calculating method for which this type of legal entity is eligible • they fulfil the definition of eligible costs • the total amount of receipts is declared by the contractor • the total amount of interest yielded by the pre-financing is declared for the relevant period by the coordinator • the relevant basis for the conversion rate used is Euro (either the conversion rate on the date the actual costs were incurred or, the rate applicable on the first day of the month following the end of reporting period) By certifying the above-mentioned elements, the auditor confirms that the principles and factors concerning the quality of information are fulfilled and that the Financial Statement gives a true and fair view of the costs claimed. The certificate should be delivered in one of the official languages of the European Union. The price of the certificate (excluding VAT) is reimbursed via the management of the consortium activity of the project (100% funding), which it is advisable to calculate during the preparation of the proposal and/or budget. independent auditor confirms that the stated costs: • Are actual • Are determined in accordance with the contractor's accounting principles • Have been incurred during the periods covered by the Financial Statement • Are recorded in the accounts of the contractor • Are exclusive of any non-eligible costs • Have been claimed according to calculating method for indirect costs, which the contractor is eligible to use The independent auditing certification, therefore, verifies that the figures provided by the consortium in the financial report are correct and are backed by invoices and other certifications proving that the Community contribution had been used according to the rules. In FP7, there will be no model text for certificate on financial statements. EC audit: Monitoring by the Commission - regular controls In addition to the periodic/final reports, reviews and the certificate of the financial statements established by the contract, the Commission may: • Organise additional reviews • Request additional information from the contractors relating to submitted reports and/or to the current implementation of the project • Carry out an audit at any time during the contract and up to five years after the end of the project There are two kinds of control (audit): 1. Ex-ante controls (before the signature of the contract); 2. Ex-post controls (during and after the implementation of the project) 1. Ex-ante The purpose of ex-ante financial controls is to verify the financial capacity of the participants. An external auditor confirms the latest financial register and evaluates the actual financial situation of the proposer. Financial verification is an obligation where the Community financial contribution to the estimated eligible costs of a contractor is more than 300,000 €, or when more than 50% of the Community contribution is paid to one partner of the consortium. This is often the case when the budget is lower than 300,000 €, although in this case it is usually sufficient to present the simplified balance sheet or the profit and loss statement. The financial capacity of public bodies (including international organisations) does not have to be verified. Due to the new Guarantee Fund far less ex-ante controls will be executed during FP7. 2. Ex-post The Commission may, at any time during the contract and up to five years after the end of the project, arrange for ex-post controls (audits) to be carried out. The audits have to be carried out by either the Commission, or the European Court of Auditors. Audits may cover any scientific, technological, ethical, financial (relating to costs) or other aspects (such as financial accounting and management principles) relating to the proper implementation of the project and the contract. The checking of projects is usually done randomly, although suspicious, large-budget projects, or those with partners modifying flat rates for indirect costs, may expect increased attention. Commission Services Assess • The degree of fulfilment of the project work plan for the period • The degree of fulfilment of the deliverables • The necessity of the resources that the contractors have employed • The management aspects of the project • The likelihood to achieve the desired results • The planning of the next period • The plan for using and disseminating the foreground Documents requested during the audit • Personnel costs: Employment contracts, payroll records, time sheets, ledgers/accounts • Overhead: Documents and invoices, which are needed to verify the amount of overhead costs • Consumables: Invoices, proof of payments • Subcontractors: Subcontracting agreement, invoices, verification of payments, output and achievement of subcontractors in light of their contracts • Travel and subsistence: Invoices, travel order, mission approval forms, record of meeting (minutes, records, etc.) • Bank statement: The transfer of the community contribution and its distribution to the partners (only in case of the coordinator) Sanctions: Sanctions are foreseen in cases of irregularities committed by a contractor (infringement of a provision of Community or national law or any breach of a contractual obligation). In such cases, the Commission can: • Exclude the contractor from the contract • Exclude the contractor from other Framework Programme contracts and from contracts under other Community policies. • Declare the contractor ineligible to participate in future Framework Programme activities, and in programmes under other Community policies. The Community, with the aim of protecting its financial interests, is entitled to claim liquidated damages from a contractor who is found to have overstated expenditure and who has consequently received an unjustified financial contribution from the Community. As established by the Financial Regulation, any contractor in breach of its obligations shall be liable to financial penalties of between 2% and 10% of the value of the Community financial contribution received. The rate may be increased (4-20%) in the event of a repeated breach. Liquidated damages: unjustified financial contribution x (overstated amount/ total amount claimed). The calculation of any liquidated damages shall only take into consideration the period relating to the beneficiary's claim for the Community financial contribution for that period. It shall not be calculated in relation to the entire Community financial contribution. WRITING A PROPOSAL - EUMEMO: Crucial phases • Defining key questions, creating an early draft (Nov-Dec 2006) This could be considered the prenatal phase of the proposal. It is a time of forming research questions, brainstorming, and developing first concepts. Once the idea is thoroughly thought over, it is time to send the draft to the prospective partners. • Consortium: Selecting partners, presenting them with the general idea, and ask ing for their contribution Choosing partners is usually, but not at all exclusively, done through existing channels and networks that may facilitate a prompt response and perhaps a more engaged reading of the draft. Comments and suggestions from the part of the prospective partners prove useful, since a different reading position necessitates different readings and different ideas. It may disclose weak points, highlight strong ones, and open doors to fruitful discussion. Obtain a "Yes, I am definitely interested" as soon as possible and try to avoid any delaying decisions as this will hinder the quality and pace of consortium composition. Make sure all the partners are well acquainted with the call, the scope of proposal, and the requirements that relate to them (see CORDIS website). • First Meeting: Discussing the concept, confronting different views (Dec 2006) Once the partners agree on participating, it proves a good idea to meet in person. A meeting is organised, which gives yourself and the partners a chance to discuss the topic, ideas, approaches, theoretical framework, methodology and so on. A bond is created and names connected to faces. • Developing the concept into a proposal (Jan-May2007) New ideas and insights are ready to be developed into an extended draft. It is advisable to conform at an early stage the design of the proposal to the guidelines for creating the proposal. Thus, the possibility of unnecessary and possibly harmful adjustments right before the deadline will be eliminated. A framework is devised of the project proposal, both theoretical and practical; what to do, how, when, for how long... It is absolutely necessary for the partners to be involved in these procedures at an earliest stage. Thus, they stay in touch with the development of the proposal and are given the opportunity to participate actively in proposal creation. • Motivating the partners to participate actively participate in proposal creation Partners' participation and involvement is crucial. It gives you the chance to enhance the proposal significantly, to overcome possible shortcomings and, most importantly, to retain focus. Since they are often overwhelmed with their own work, think and act well in advance. • Managing different ideas and directing them into a consistent whole However, different and varying views and ideas may also prove to be "dangerous", particularly when the consortium is rather large. Living with the project idea for some time, each individual devises her or his own views, thoughts and considerations about it. They know what they would like to do and necessarily try to influence the development of the proposal (at least to some extent) along the lines of their reasoning. This, of course, is most welcome. Yet balancing is required in terms of consortium management (internal politics) and management of the main idea/topic. Include the strongest remarks, comments, and suggestions and diplomatically reject others. This may prove an important managerial experience and help develop useful skills for later on, when/if the project receives a green light. • Style of writing Regarding the main part of the text, the proposal elaboration itself, it is of great importance to keep the text reader-friendly, possibly even amusing (to capture the reader's attention), while retaining a high level of scientific quality to make it stand out. This is not an easy task, as writing in a foreign language demands a certain degree of skill and experience. The basic rule is to keep the sentences precise and concise, and avoid subclauses. • Methodology and theory Devise a sound methodological framework based on relevant literature, go beyond the state-of-the-art. Working with experts and scientist from different scientific and cultural backgrounds may provide a good basis to do this. • Work plan and Work packages Design the WPs so that they correspond with the general project thematic and/or temporal divisions - work plan. It is crucial to include as many partners as possible into each one WP, thus providing a greater international distribution of work. Make sure the work and topics do not overlap. At this point, partners will become more directly involved, as this is the stage in the development of the proposal that concerns the very nature of work to be done. Therefore, it is advisable to devise a solid framework (structure) yourself and invite the partners to find their role in it. As the WPs are a result of previous joint work on the proposal, it will have been designed in such as for all the partners to know what they wish to be doing and what their most fruitful contribution might be. In the "Objectives" section of the form use verbs in infinitive to define what you wish to do; in "Description of work" be more descriptive and explanatory. Clearly identify goals, impact, and relevance for the national, international, European, etc. contexts. • Second meeting (April 2007) When the proposal is nearly done, another meeting is organised. At this stage, the proposal is practically finished, only allowing for slight adjustments and as little change as possible. This meeting is used for ironing the proposal. Additionally, as financial matters are also of great importance, these will be discussed as well. As it might prove delicate, it is better to talk money in person. Discuss the possible expenses (travel, etc.), hourly wages, taxes in each country, and devise a draft financial plan. If possible, invite an expert in these matters to advise you, as the calculations are often tricky. If a meeting is not a viable option, do try to organise an online equivalent. • Finances Talking money has to be done thoroughly and fastidiously. Resources to be allocated are to be distributed among the partners fairly - this does not mean equally, but to each according to their needs. The coordinator has to cover the expenses of management, someone will decide to only participate half-time, another will conceive an exhibition or an extensive website. In any case, be economic and present your proposal as such. National particularities have to be taken into consideration when calculating the costs; travel, accommodation, conferences and workshops you wish to organise, etc. • Revision and proof-reading Being a non-English speaker (mostly the proposals are written in English), it is advisable to have the proposal proof-read by a native speaker. Certain linguistic structures originating in one's mother tongue simply do not translate. Another benefit might be that the external reader, unburdened by several months of immersion in preparation of the proposal, will see it in a different light and point to possible inconsistencies. • Submitting the proposal (May 2007) Before you submit the proposal, put it aside and revisit it in a couple of days. Thus, a fresh insight is gained and certain mistakes, unfinished sentences, typos, etc are corrected. Now the proposal is finished, it is also time to write an abstract. It has to be short, consistent and concise. Explain the basic idea, the scope of the project, the consortium structure. Most importantly, the EPSS online submission service enables you to resubmit as many times as you like. Submit the first version well ahead; update and resubmit the proposal until the deadline. eumemo - project proposal6 Proposal full title: EUROPEAN MEMORY CULTURES REFRAMED Proposal acronym: EUMEMO Type of funding scheme: Collaborative Project; Small or medium-scale focused research project Work programme topics addressed: FP7-SSH-2007-5.2.1 Diversities and Commonalities in Europe; Histories and Identities - Articulating National and European Identities; FP7-SSH-2007-3.3.1 Cultural Interactions and Multiculturalism in European Societies Name of the coordinating person: List of participants: Participant no. Participant organisation name Country P1 In order to protect intelectual rights of the participants in the project proposal some parts and sections have been removed or considerably shortened. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Scientific quality, relevant to the topics addressed by the call...........................145 1.1 Concept and objectives..................................................................................145 1.1.1 Project Outline....................................................................................145 1.1.2 Elaboration..........................................................................................147 1.2 Progress beyond the state-of-the-art..............................................................149 1.3 Scientific methodology and associated work plan.........................................149 2. Implementation......................................................................................................155 2.1 Management structure and procedures..........................................................155 2.2 Individual participants....................................................................................156 2.3 Consortium as a whole...................................................................................156 2.4 Resources to be committed............................................................................156 3. Impact ..............................................................................................................157 3.1 Expected impacts listed in the work programme...........................................157 3.2 Dissemination and exploitation of project results, and management of intellectual property 159 4. Ethical Issues..........................................................................................................161 5. Consideration of gender aspects...........................................................................161 References ..............................................................................................................162 1 SCIENTIFIC QUALITY RELEVANT TO THE TOPICS ADDRESSED BY THE CALL 1.1 CONCEPT AND OBJECTIVES Main Research Topics The change of memory landscape and conceptions of historical memory in post-1989-91 Europe; changing memory cultures in the age of information and communication technologies (ICT); national identity politics, processes of European integration and the search for a common European identity. Abstract The 3-year research project (2008-2010) EUMEMO proposes to research and analyse the shifts in conceptualisations and manifestations of memory in post-1989 Central and South-Eastern Europe. The project is primarily concerned with the changing memory cultures and landscapes in the light of the EU integration. The overarching question is how the processes of memory and remembrance have changed and how they are reflected in contemporary material and discursive representations. The divided pasts of European nations prevent a unified, shared history of Europe to emerge. Yet, we believe that for Europe to successfully integrate the questions of the past, national and transnational representations and interpretations have to be investigated. Having in mind that the perceptions of the past are mainly informed around the traumatic episodes and events in the past of a particular nation or nations, we believe that these issues have to be properly readdressed. And it is precisely the traumacity of the past and thereby emerging contested narratives that cut the deepest divisions among the European nations. Therefore it is essential to provide conditions for these contested pasts to be articulated and confronted with different, varying narratives. However, speaking about such events as the Holocaust, mass deportations, forced migrations, extra-judicial exterminations, war time collaboration, and communist suppression, the anti-fascist stance is the underlying assumption. The project will approach the research topics via three main themes. The first deals with the change in the field of memory and remembrance and reframes the key concepts of this field. The second investigates the impact of contested narratives on contemporary identity politics. The third focuses on historical representations in mass and electronic media and its effect on the processes of imagining the past. 1.1.1 Project outline Objectives and Scope Through the cooperation of scholars and institutions of various professional backgrounds from a number of European countries the EUMEMO aspires to establish a set of answers to questions of why memory is important to people and communities today. It will investigate with what meaning people endow their intimate experiences and the perceived experiences of their group, and how they perform certain acts based on these memories and public representations thereof. Thus we shall provide a coherent platform for research into the changing role of memory and remembering in the post-1989 Europe. In order to connect the 'core' and 'periphery' of Europe we shall also focus on the areas (Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina) not yet included into the Framework Programme. Moreover, the recent debates over the implications of Estonian Soviet shared history and the relationship between the Baltic States and Russia in general will be taken into account as well. Taking these areas into consideration is essential for the outcomes of the EUMEMO. The primary focus though is the Central and South-East European region including countries and cultures that in the last century underwent grave political, economic, social and cultural changes. The main activities revolve around the following issues (explained in the Elaboration section): 1. Changing memory cultures and landscapes in post-1989 Europe 2. Transnational and transgenerational forms of remembering; contested narratives and identity politics 3. Mediatisation of 'reality' and the processes of imagining the past Taken together, these areas cover the complexity of memorial practices, interpretations of the past, and their representations and uses in the present. This structure allows for research to engage with theoretical implications and elaborations of relevant notions (memory, trauma, and changing memory landscapes); with an analysis of material and discursive elements of representations of the past, and with the impact of contemporary technological devices on memory representing practices. Concomitantly, the EU integration processes intersperse all aspects of the research. Methodology Given the multidisciplinary approach, we do not aim to develop a unified homogeneous methodology but rather to carry out a flexible and responsive research based on a dialogue of different approaches and activity-specific methodologies. By conducting and comparing parallel research in several countries employing the methods of several different disciplines, we aim to combine and significantly extend cross-disciplinary perspectives on the way in which the complexities of the past are rationalised, represented and dealt with in the context of European integration. While various methods and techniques will be applied, ranging from oral history through archival research to analyses of media content, they will be united by a common critical perspective seeking to demystify national grand narratives. In particular, the methodological innovations within EUMEMO consist of bringing together and drawing links between: • Diverse sets of data; • Different levels of memory; • Different disciplinary perspectives. In relation to (a), compiling of relevant data will be performed at the levels of material, visual and discursive representations of memory: heritage sites, monuments, memorials, museums, documents, the arts, literature, film, web presentations, graffiti. These have been analysed mostly separately until now. The project intends to fill this gap by performing semantic analyses to establish links between them. Also, the importance of living histories and the representations of the past in quotidian will not be neglected; memoirs, biographies and oral history archives will comprise important data sets. In relation to (b), the project will look at the different manifestations of memory at individual, collective and institutional levels, which will facilitate exploration of the profound interactions between these types of memory and the impact of public discourse on the very patterns of memory narratives. In relation to (c), the project aims to combine the perspectives of several disciplines: history (concentrating primarily on methodological issues such as the conditions for assessing credibility, factualism or authenticity); anthropology (the changes in festivals, rituals, memorials etc.); psychology (research into individual narrations and recollections of the past events and how their representations have changed); and media studies (the impact of media on socio-cultural practices of past constructions). This approach offers ways to get beyond the division of individual and collective memory for it assumes that individuals share a representation of the past because they share textual resources. 1.1.2 Elaboration Changing Memory Cultures and Landscapes in post-1989 Europe Although the catastrophes and events of mass destruction of human lives present the turning points around which the patterns of orientation of and within societies are constructed, history and historical memory no longer function only as an instrument for people to orient themselves in the world. It could even be maintained that history and dealing with the past have very little room in the rapidly changing and developing global environment, especially if we take into consideration the ideology of progress designating the past almost irrelevant. However, the global wave of intellectual exploration into historical fields shows the building of personal and collective identity through memory becoming ever stronger. Moreover, history and historical memory have widely entered the sphere of the popular culture, mostly through ICT, perhaps the most conspicuous branches of "memory industry" (Klein, 2000: 127). They thus became an important ingredient of public debates and political negotiations. Or, to put it in Jorn Rusen's (2002) words, ever since "history" has been declared to be at its end, "historical matters" seem to have come back with a vengeance. Now also outside the Western Europe and the U.S. historians, anthropologists, phi- losophers, sociologists and others ask the 'usual' questions about the dominant strategies used to represent historical meaning. They too are interested in special areas of human thought, action and suffering that call for a specifically historical thinking including the construction and perpetuation of collective identity. All together however, they are trying to suggest that we should consider identity not as a function of difference, but as a concrete and ongoing cultural practice of difference. The majority of those interested in the arts and ways of historical interpretation try to prove the production of sense to be both an epistemological starting-point as well as a theoretical and empirical research field in and of itself. Accordingly, special focus is dedicated to approaches to the study of historical memory. We may today be more comfortable with the figure of victims and perpetrators of the previous century but we have yet to come to terms with how we should remember and critically understand the legacy of the catastrophe of two world wars and the division of Europe. Memory and Identity There are not only mere historical differences within a national culture and among different cultures (and in these two levels intertwined) that are at stake here, for example in a historiography committed to the national perspective and orientation of European standards of historical professionalism. By now the processes of migration and integration have produced new constellation of intercultural communication. The EU countries, nations, and societies find themselves questioned and challenged in new ways by new Member States and by their reservoir of experiences. New general rules of and for memory politics can be drawn from these interactions, hopefully offering at least some guidance for the future of the enterprise of peaceful coexistence of different cultures under the sheltering skies of the united Europe. This means that various and often differing views of the past and interpretations of the same events meet in a new environment, socio-cultural setting. Research design should fundamentally be guided by the goal of creating the means for intercultural and international comparison of its results; for their applicability to the problematic concerned; and accessibility to specified target groups. Considering the growing problems of cultural conflict in the processes of European integration and increased migration, comparative and critical reflection of empirical data along with necessary theoretical reflections should take place bringing together divergent modes of remembering. Nevertheless, historical memory and historical consciousness have an important cultural function - they form identity in a temporal perspective. Cinematic Representations and Memory Considerable effort and attention will be directed towards investigating the affluence of historical representations and renditions of the past available through ICT, i.e. interactive sites dedicated to memory and 'unforgetting' of the traumatic events, DVDs, etc. Due to growing presence of ICT in everyday life and especially due to the impact, popularity and relevance ICT enjoy among the youth this certainly deserves attention. Here, the question arises of how to deal with: burgeoning fragmentary representations and interpretations of the past perhaps most evident in the accessibility of the Internet (creative and consumptive component) - the renditions of the past that need not much state sponsoring to emerge into being and reach large number of people; 'condensed' narrations; and rival/combating narrations. Studying this kind of material we shall question the potential of contemporary technologies of communication and visualisation to mould memory and investigate the ways in which they achieve this. 1.2 PROGRESS BEYOND THE STATE-OF-THE-ART For the past two decades, memory has become a widely discussed theme in a number of disciplines ranging from cognitive psychology to cultural studies. At the same time, it has entered critical historical studies that seem to have given up the claim of the one and only 'objective historical truth'. Pierre Nora's fundamental project (Nora 1984, 1986, 1992) has triggered a lot of critical work on 'public memory' and its uncritical renditions of the past, and also some similar endeavours in other European countries (Francois und Schulze 2001). In the English speaking world, Paul Connerton's classic (Connerton 1989) has opened the vast theme of the ways societies 'remember' and 'forget'. On the other hand, the rise of oral history from the early 1980s on (Thompson 2000) has drawn the attention to personal memory and to the questions of its authenticity as the voice of the poor and powerless and its potential to evoke counter-narratives. Studies of the Holocaust and Holocaust denial (Rosenthal 1997, Young 1993, Friedlander 2007), historical traumas (LaCapra 2001, Antze and Lambek 1996) and communist repressions lead to a re-consideration of theoretical and methodological problems related to personal and 'collective' (or group) memory (Halbwachs 1925, 1950, Welzer, 2002). Recent studies (Hodgkin and Radstone 2003) demonstrate the range of new questions that are being asked in relation to memory, as well as the range of approaches employed. Discussing the questions of memories and identities connected with the creation of EU identity and using the discursive protocols of historiography, social and culture sciences we have to reflect the wide range of existing literature and conceptualisation. The materials we have to consider consist of microanalysis in articles in journals (Rethinking History, Zeitgeschichte, Nationalities Papers, History & Theory, East European Politics & Societies, Transit: Europaische Revue...) and theoretical/theories (and) conceptualisations and synthesis in books, documentaries and museum exhibitions. At the same time we have to make clear from the start that believing that the distinctiveness of Western historical though does not consist a series of unique characteristics but rather a unique combination of elements each of which is to be found elsewhere, we understand the European identity(-ies) as a pattern of emphasis, which themselves vary by period, region, social group and their (national and/or ethnic) collective memories. 1.3 scientific methodology and associated work plan This is a 36-month project and will be realised following guidelines formulated in the Work Package descriptions. The completion of activities important for further implementation of the work plan is marked by a milestone. The start of the project, described in WP1, will involve the putting in motion of the management infrastructure and employment of researchers and doctoral students. The kick-off meeting will serve as an opportunity for all participants to meet in person. Consider- G H a "3 a-■ L< sc E i * s J« P r1 li* " ■ r 1 t E S i d J S eM JB s D r. S f - -- 3 S +■ J d a £ H ■ - 1 Nr i ■ - JI 31: i * S Z - <=/ ? 9 3 2 Iftli i C C n a O C ■y- C C + —> S s sw t: I! - -T rt' s — IIHI It š * B C C C d O ■ ■ , . ■J" —s n D jj srvac S LIL c: c: 5 fl a 10 = """i 0 ■= * — S * met>< s" S b ■ K " - sin .n ■ a e 3 0 E fc g £ O W yj —> O £ e. •s> —J 13 £ u* s CL t i s i t \ s 1 i; J I t i 1 1 ! E c i C £ ■a i ■ i i r | i 1 s i j i! ji i -■j • i 1 t i ! £ : ij ! (_l H 1 h ■ S 1 i; 1 1 1 t I ? h i H I s a ■ • T! 1 f g S £ J J E L § V 1 T i £3 si 1 g j i l rr h- % S uT n i i i i i Figure 1. EUMEMO Gantt chart. able amount of time will be devoted to elaboration of work plan according to thematically coherent yet significantly differentiated Work Packages. The main line that structurally connects the WP2-WP4 and leads from the beginning to the end of the project runs along the following division: WP2 features mostly theoretical considerations, conceptualisations and reframing of memory studies related concepts. This leads to WP3 that mostly deals with material representations of memory. WP4 takes the research to the level of virtual representation of memory and history. This WP also includes outline for the creation of an online expanding memorial archive that will provide a place for visual, audio and textual representations of the past to be compiled and available to researchers and other interested parties. WP5 will see to design and implementation of an MA programme that will be run at P2. It will build up on results and findings of other participants. WP6 is devoted to dissemination and exploitation of results through by means of International Conferences and a number of publications. Table 1.3 a: Work package list Work Work package Type of Lead participant Person- Start End package title activity N° months month month N° WP1 Coordination and Project Management MGT P1 25 1 36 WP2 Changing Memory Cultures RTD P6 89,2 5 36 WP3 Memory and Identity RTD P8 95,9 3 36 WP4 Cinematic Representations and Memory RTD P9 34,7 12 34 WP5 MA Programme Design OTHER P2 21 3 32 WP6 Exploitation and Dissemination OTHER P5 66,2 4 36 TOTAL 332 A WAY TO BRUSSELS OR HOW TO WIN A EUROPEAN PROJECT IN HUMANITIES Table 1.3 b: Deliverables List Del. N° Deliverable name WP n° Nature Dissemination level Delivery date D 1.1 Organisation of the kick-off meeting WP1 R RE Month 3 D 1.2 Consortium Agreement WP1 O RE Month 3 D 1.3 Operative internal management tool WP1 R PU Month 4 D 1.4 Periodic progress report according to guidelines for reporting WP1 R CO Month 6 D 1.5 Cost statements according to guidelines for reporting WP1 R CO Month 7 D 6.1 International Conference WP6 R PU Month 9 D 1.6 Interim financial and activities report WP1 R CO Month 12 D 3.1 Case study projects and feasibility reports WP3 R RE Month 12 D 1.7 Periodic progress report according to guidelines for reporting WP1 R CO Month 18 D 2.1 Case studies feasibility reports WP2 R PU Month 18 D 4.2 Summer School WP4 O PU Month 19 D 5.1 Start of MA Programme WP5 O PU Month 22 D 1.8 Interim financial and activities report WP1 R CO Month 24 D 1.9 Periodic progress report WP1 R CO Month 30 D 6.7 Book: Cultural History of Memory WP6 R PU Month 35 D 1.10 Final financial and activities report WP1 R CO Month 36 Table 1.3c Work Package Description Work package no. WP1 Start date or starting event M1 WP title Co-Ordination and Project Management Activity type MGT Participant number P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 Person-months per participant 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Objectives To lead, coordinate and monitor project implementation and to ensure the effective harmonious relationship and partnering within the consortium - overall supervision To manage the financial and administrative tasks To enhance the communication flow both within the consortium and between the consortium and Research project officer To ensure timely reporting To organise a kick-off meeting To design and maintain the internal project management tool - EUMEMO Online Description of work Task 1.1 General coordination and project management (P1, WP Leaders) Project management will be carried out by P1 who will ensure that project milestones, deliverables and objectives are met and satisfied. P1 will be responsible for coordinating the activities of the consortium. Through this WP efficient and reliable management and coordination system will be implemented. Administration of the project including an overall supervision and proactive measures will ensure timely completion of the tasks. From previous involvement in EU and national projects, P1 recognises that regular and efficient communication is essential between all members of consortium. Therefore it will also be responsible for ensuring proper communication with and among the partners via regular e-mails, conference calls, intranet communication and forum etc. In order to provide for necessary meetings 3 international conferences will be organised (further described in WP6 Task 6.3). Thus, opportunities will be ensured for exchange of ideas, results and to discuss further steps to be taken towards successful completion of the tasks. P1 will provide a clear allocation of responsibilities and ensure an optimal use of the consortium's know-how and expertise. Therefore, each WP will be assigned a 'leader' with whom P1 will keep constant contact. P1 will transfer the payments to the partners according to the provisions of the grant agreement. The consortium agreement will be established with all partners to be signed at the kick-off meeting. Task 1.2 Reporting (P1) P1 will be responsible for timely and correct reporting to the EC and for executing efficient administrative management and control over systems within the operation. Partners will be required to send periodic progress reports on expenditure and activity fulfilment every six months to the coordinator. P1 will thus be able to monitor the progress of the project and to take measures where and if necessary. P1 will compile and submit the two interim and a final activity and financial report (end of year 1 and 3 respectively). Regarding the final reporting, the coordinator will ensure that an independent auditor's verification is performed on his reported expenditure. Task 1.3 EUMEMO Online (P1) P1 will design and maintain a virtual internal project management tool in order to provide a meeting space for the participants and other interested parties (restricted area for participants; unrestricted area for others). It will be used to announce conference calls and reports; new findings related to the project research; and a forum available to all interested parties. The management is thus believed to be made more transparent and, due to optimisation in travel, less costly. Deliverables D 1.1 Organisation of the kick-off meeting (M3) D 1.2 Consortium agreement (M3) D 1.3 Operative internal project management tool (M4) D 1.4 Periodic progress report according to guidelines for reporting (M6) D 1.5 Cost statements according to guidelines for reporting (M7) D 1.6 Interim financial and activities report (M12) D 1.7 Periodic progress report according to guidelines for reporting (M18) D 1.8 Interim financial and activities report (M24) D 1.9 Periodic progress report according to guidelines for reporting (M30) D 1.10 Final financial and activities report (M36) Table 1.3 d Summary of Staff Effort Participant n°/short name WP1 WP2 WP3 WP4 WP5 WP6 Total person months P1 25 12 9,5 15,2 0 22 83,7 P2 0 0 5 0 15 2 22 P3 0 16 0 0 2 2 20 P4 0 10 0 1,5 0 2 13,5 P5 0 30 2,5 0 0 5 37,5 P6 0 10 0 1,5 0 2 13,5 P7 0 0 26,5 3,5 0 7,2 37,2 P8 0 3,6 18,4 0 4 10 36 P9 0 2,3 0 13 0 4,2 19,5 P10 0 5,3 34 0 0 9,8 49,1 Total 25 89,2 95,9 34,7 21 66,2 332 Table 1.3e List of milestones Milestone number Milestone name Work package(s) involved Expected date Means of verification M1 EUMEMO Online WP1 Month 4 Online discussion M2 International Conference I WP1-WP6 Month 9 Presentation and discussion of actions M3 International Conference II WP1-WP6 Month 18 Presentation and discussion interim results M4 Start of MA Programme WP5 Month 20 Meeting of lectures M5 International Conference III WP1-WP6 Month 30 Presentation and final discussion about results M6 Completion of Chartae Memoriae WP1,2,3,4,6 Month 35 Workshop presentation 2 IMPLEMENTATION 2.1 MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AND PROCEDURES The Pert chart bellow shows the interconnection between management, thematic and dissemination activities. The structure of WP2-WP4 logically follows the line from theoretical framework to case studies of material representations, which lead to the level of cinematic representations of memory and the past. WP5, the MA Programme design, will use the results and findings (available at the beginning of the programme; these will be implemented continuously) to help create up-to-date contents. The dissemination presents a sum up of the activities and a tool for their dissemination. These processes involve tasks and assignments regarding content and technical elements and procedures. To enable high efficiency of the consortium tasks will be delegated according to professional preferences and staff capabilities. Therefore, the degree of involvement of each partner institution will vary. However, in order to ensure as high as possible a degree of international cooperation and interdisciplinarity, different institutions and their staff will jointly participate in majority of Work Packages. A separate role of each participant will be to monitor the progress of one's activities, see to successful implementation of research goals and report to the coordinator. Self-assessment reports will be gathered by the P1 who will also provide general overview of the state of ongoing activities, with procedures and outcomes made available to all partners and report to the Commission. This mechanism should provide for successful management and project guidance and at the same time also enhance rationality of resources and expenditure. 2.2 INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPANTS 2.3 CONSORTIUM AS A WHOLE Taking into account the fact that use (and abuse) of collective memory in defining European identity is a common European problem we have established an academic network. In order to cover most of Europe we have invited people from eight countries. Although the majority of participants are based in Central Europe we are also interested in examining the situation in the Baltic States and Eastern Europe. Nevertheless, we would like to look beyond the borders of the so called new Europe. At least in some elements we would like to compare our results with the situation in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. We are also very much concerned to include younger researchers and faculty members who have already proved competent in dealing with this particular topic. Being aware of transgenerational aspect of this problem we decided to establish a special MA programme in collective memory studies. In this way we will be able to transfer the knowledge into university curriculum. The core of the EUMEMO team is a combination of experienced and well known faculty lecturers and researchers and some younger colleagues with considerable research and teaching skills. i) Subcontracting: ii) Other Countries: 2.4 RESOURCES TO BE COMMITTED The financial structure of EUMEMO indicates that Project management involves 25 PM, which constitutes a percentage of 7,5% of the total PMs. The total costs for MGT (PM and all other direct and indirect costs) is 115,517 €, which equals 7,5% of requested EC contribution. 60% of the total budget is allocated to R&D and 32,5% will be used for training and dissemination. The R&D relevant costs (WP 2-WP4) are for fieldwork and laptops (on an annual depreciation basis; software, technical-scientific material), as well as copyright payment for some of the exhibition material. Travel expenses include envisaged costs for: • 4 project meetings (R&D) during the entire duration of the project • and external conferences to present project findings (Dissemination WP 6) On the basis of 1-2 persons per partner institution (coordinator and 9 partners) per meeting the cost calculation is as follows: • Meetings will last 3 days (day one for internal proj ect matters, day 2+3 for transnational dissemination) • 550 € for flights, 120 € for accommodation (2 nights), days allowance/subsist ence acc. to the relevant EU subsistence rates (average 140 €/day - 3days) • 550+240+420=1210 Partners individual travel budget is therefore between 10-14,000 € We also plan to spend certain amount of money to raise awareness of the crucial connection between memory/ies and national, regional and European identities. Nevertheless, research like this is instrumental not only for understanding but also for transforming the ongoing discussion on European identity. One of the ways in which this can be achieved is in finding new ways of communicating between the research and its end users thus providing the latter with resources to improve understanding of the here and now. 3 IMPACT 3.1 expected impacts listed IN THE work PROGRAMME Implications for Target Audiences and EU Integration Processes The project will explore, analyse and provide reflection on the themes and topics as explained above. This will also include bringing into consideration wider European problematic in identity politics and dealing with the past. A wide range of disciplines will be involved to explore issues relevant to history, identity politics, memory studies, the arts and the media (cinema, television Internet) in developing and conveying knowledge, attitudes and practices for European citizens. Our aim is to provide the following target groups • EU/National institutions • Policy makers, teachers • Students, youth and • Broader public with tools and knowledge in order to better understand the changes that the fall of communism has brought in its wake. Also, we find it of great importance to not only present relevant communities with results, but to motivate these groups to take active part in the processes of dissemination of project's results and further contributions to development and implementation of EU policies. In a changing and developing European environment searching for political and cultural integration transnational comparability is necessary in order to establish mechanisms / joint framework wherein to fit the diverging national specific interpretations of history. Here, it should be noted that national interpretations of the past are inherently divergent as well and cannot be understood as seamless wholes. In this respect, heated debates on the Communist past of former East bloc countries may serve as interesting examples. The most conspicuous perhaps are current revisions of the past in the Baltic and former Yugoslavia problematising the post-World War II period thus implicitly denying anti-fascism and apologising collaboration with the Nazis. These processes also include some Western European countries. In order to provide the future of the European idea with a sound foundation, the relation to the past needs to be researched into detail and presented accordingly. This, however, is a task of great delicacy for it involves addressing traumatic topics and issues that have not yet been successfully absolved into the contemporary European identity politics. Therefore they still significantly, although not necessarily most conspicuously, influence the present state of European affairs. The importance of providing the European citizen with as comprehensive as possible an understanding of the past and adequate tools for dealing with the present, endows the project with considerable credibility and potential. The expected impact of the project is • to advance the state of the art in the area of memory studies. The importance of this topic for the processes of European integration, recognition and acceptance of different historical narratives and modes of remembrance is indisputable. • To increase awareness of importance of intercultural dialogue, professional and private networks and exchange of knowledge, people and ideas as the most important means in fighting ignorance and prejudice • To provide the target groups (EU/National institutions, policy makers, teachers, students, youth and broader public) with a comprehensive, European-wide applicable body of analyses of the change in memorial landscapes in post-1989 Europe. • To enable a public confrontation, evaluation and re-examination of contested, sometimes exclusive, interpretations of the past, inherently variegated national histories and even more variegated conceptions of a shared European history. It is important to deal with the traumas that burden the present in such a way so as to transcend the traumacity and unbearable weight of the pasts, and not reproduce it. Goals and Expected Results Theoretical (ongoing): • to contextualise and conceptualise the shift in social-cultural imagination after 1989; • to elaborate theoretical concepts of memory and remembering, trauma and historiography; identity and memory; • to present the forms of memory and the transformation in the needs for memories so as to fit them into broader scheme of European discourses. Practical (mid- to long term) • to establish a body of analyses (physical, visual and discursive representations of memory); • to organise 3 International Conferences, seminars, a summer school, in order to present and exchange findings and experience. Final Results (long-term) • to affirm the transnational academic networks in the field of 20th century-memory studies; • to expand already existing graduate programmes of the partners; 3.2 DISSEMINATION AND EXPLOITATION OF PROJECT RESULTS, AND management of intellectual property EUMEMO will pay particular attention to dissemination of research results. A separate WP will provide guidance for implementation of ongoing strategies for dissemination of research results to different target groups within the European society and beyond. The dissemination strategy of the project aims to achieve continuous distribution and use of knowledge amongst partners, the wider academic community, and the wider target audiences. This will be ensured through: • effective internal communication • efficient communication with the academic community • efficient communication with the institutions and the wider public The three annual International Conferences will primarily serve as a means to maintaining contact among the project researchers and personnel. Thus opportunities will be provided to present, discuss and exchange results, views and concerns to other project partners in person. This reflective activity will also include broader academic community and will be designed so as to attract acclaimed scholars. The conferences will particularly encourage participation of younger scholars and post-graduate students in related fields of studies. Targeted policy documents as additional outcomes of the conferences will provide both national and EU decision makers with necessary data to improve the prospects of policy implementation in the EU integration processes. Publications will bring results and findings arrived at and gathered during the course of the EUMEMO closer and available to the broadest possible public i.e. the student body, scholars, interested public, policy makers etc. The list of publications will thematically correspond to the project structure presented through WP2-WP4 running from the theoretical framework to analyses of material representations of the past to the cinematic, televised, and ICT influenced and promulgated representations of history. Additionally, throughout the duration of the project, smaller-scale electronic and print output will be published. Management of Knowledge and Intellectual Property Data, tools, theory and concepts developed by the project will be considered public goods and will be made available through the project website. The partners have agreed to subscribe to a Consortium Agreement prepared during the negotiation phase and are aware of the potential to perform intellectual property protection and of the potential of patent protection prior to publication. The documents detailing the IPR procedures for FP7 will be circulated amongst the partners and the consortium agreement will include detailed provisions to deal with management of knowledge and IPR in accordance with the guidelines provided by the Regulation (EC) No 1906/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the rules for dissemination of the Seventh Framework Programme research results (20072013) regulating specific rights, obligations and operational aspects, and with the relevant national programmes. IPR will be retained by the project partners, with specific IPR for each WP and task resting with the appropriate WP and task worker. 4 ethical issues Ethical Issues Table Informed Consent YES Page • Does the proposal involve children? • Does the proposal involve patients or persons not able to give consent? • Does the proposal involve adult healthy volunteers? • Does the proposal involve Human Genetic Material? • Does the proposal involve Human biological samples? • Does the proposal involve Human data collection? Research on Human embryo/foetus • Does the proposal involve Human Embryos? • Does the proposal involve Human Foetal Tissue / Cells? • Does the proposal involve Human Embryonic Stem Cells? Privacy • Does the proposal involve processing of genetic information or personal data (e.g. health, sexual lifestyle, ethnicity, political opinion, religious or philosophical conviction) • Does the proposal involve tracking the location or observation of people? Research on Animals • Does the proposal involve research on animals? • Are those animals transgenic small laboratory animals? • Are those animals transgenic farm animals? • Are those animals cloning farm animals? • Are those animals nonhuman primates? Research Involving Developing Countries • Use of local resources (genetic, animal, plant etc) • Benefit to local community (capacity building i.e. access to healthcare, education etc) Dual Use • Research having potential military / terrorist application I CONFIRM THAT NONE OF THE ABOVE ISSUES APPLY TO MY PROPOSAL YES 5 CONSIDERATION OF GENDER ASPECTS The EUMEMO research and management group appears to be very much in balance with regards to gender aspects. It could even be maintained that there is a slight majority of female team members. Being aware of ageism we took into consideration also the trans-generational age structure trying to provide opportunities for younger researchers, both female and male, to be involved in research. This is a part of the P1 equal opportunities policy. At the same time the P1 also tries to develop and sustain a unique system (at least in Slovenia) to employ elderly colleagues who are normally pensioned right after they fulfil the national criteria for retirement. references http://www.europamedia.org/about.html http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/home_en.html http://www.eutrainingsite.net/ http://ec.europa.eu/research/social-sciences/links/article_3319_en.htm http://www.consilium.europa.eu/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=253&mode=g&lang=en http://www.nsd.uib.no/cessda/home.html http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/research/organisation.cfm?lang=en