New Report Available on Integreated Projects in FP6
See below for details or Email MONET Office for an electronic / papercopy.   1. Introduction 2. General Themes 2.1. FP6 2.2. Proposal Evaluation 3. European Research Area 3.1. Structuring the ERA 3.2. Objectives of the ERA 4. IST Workprogramme 2003 - 2004 4.1. Introduction 4.2. The Workprogramme and Policy 4.3. IST in FP6: Coverage and Main Targets (2.2.2) 4.4. Workprogramme 2002-2003: Focus on a limited set of Strategic Objectives (2.2.3) 4.5. Focus on the fields that need to be addressed at a European level: realising the objectives of ERA in IST (2.2.4) 4.6. SME's and ACC's 4.7. Specific Details of Strategic Objectives 4.7.1. eSafety for Road and Air Transport (2.3.1.10) 4.8. CALL FICHES (WP Section 2.7) 5. Calls for Proposals 5.1. Introduction 5.2. Call Budgets 6. Strategic Objectives 6.1. Call One Strategic Objectives 6.2. Call Two Strategic Objectives 7. IST 7.1. Main Objectives 7.2. Strategy 7.3. The IST Vision 8. Integrated Projects 8.1. Requirements 9. Evaluation 9.1. Evaluation Criteria 9.1.1. Relevance to the Objectives of the Programme 9.1.2. Strategic Impact 9.1.3. S&T Excellence 9.1.4. Quality of the Consortium 9.1.5. Quality of the Management 9.1.6. Mobilisation of Resources 9.2. Overview of Evaluation 9.2.1. Step 1: Briefing of the Evaluators (Obligatory) 9.2.2. Step 2: Individual Evaluation of Proposals (Obligatory) 9.2.3. Step 3: Consensus (Obligatory) 9.2.4. Step 4: Ranking List (Obligatory) 9.2.5. Step 5: Panel Evaluation (Optional) 9.3. Administrative Eligibility Check 9.4. Evaluation Criteria in the Work Programme / Call 9.5. Gender and Ethical Issues 9.6. The Proposal Evaluators Themselves 10. Useful Links 11. Unwritten Rules 1. Introduction This document will present information which is essential to a successful Integrated Project proposal in the IST area. This information has been gathered from a range of sources and represents only data which many (if not all) of those sources agree upon. Although, this is dedicated to Integrated Projects (IP's), due to these being the most likely route of MONET involvement in FP6, much of the information will also hold true for the Traditional Instruments. 2. General Themes Far from being background information these themes could possibly be the most important factors to consider when writing a Proposal. For the first time the Commission is linking each and every Project to the goals of the Framework as a whole. 2.1. FP6 FP6 may be a research Framework Programme but it is also a Political lever. The whole purpose of FP6 is to implement the European Research Area (ERA) and to give substance to its tenets. For this purpose the Commission has made it quite clear that any project, regardless of merit, that does not address the wider issues of the ERA will not be successful. It is also worth noting when writing a Proposal for an Integrated Project, this is exactly what the commission want to see, a project which is fully integrated throughout its lifetime and research and realisation activities. The project should span as much of the life cycle as possible, from research to realisation to public consultation. It should also include many countries and many disciplines, all ages and both genders. Technology is the driving force behind much of FP6 and especially IST. However, the Commission have been very clear on the point that 'technology for its own sake' will not feature in FP6. FP6 is about technology to benefit 'everyone', and by this they stress that they do mean everyone; equality and diversity are also strong themes of FP6 and so should be included in your proposal. For example the Commission has just increased its target for women in Science from 30% to 40%. The equality issue is very important; inclusion of youth in science, for example will be looked on very highly during the proposal evaluation process. The Commission also seem very keen to include the public at large in these projects and seem to suggest that proposals that do so will be looked upon favourably. Alongside its call for technology for the people, is the Commissions opinion that technology should also be less intrusive, almost invisible. One of the major themes of FP6 is 'Ambient Intelligence'; a recurring theme of which is that our surroundings should be the interface and thus we should move away from the traditional computer interfaces such as the screen, keyboard and mouse. Of course the intelligent aspect is also a strong theme although exactly what the Commission means by this appears less clear. 2.2. Proposal Evaluation To add additional weight to the importance of these issue the following quote is from the Guidelines for Commission Evaluators (currently in Draft - see below for further details). First the text states that the ranking of Projects will 'normally' follow the advice from the Evaluators, in explanation of this term it goes onto state; "In drawing up the final ranked list, the Commission services also take into account the programme priorities (for example, coverage of the programme objectives, compatibility with stated Community policy objectives, if appropriate). For these reasons, it may be decided not to rank the proposals in the evaluators' priority order." Thus, the relevance of the proposal's content to the Work Programme and other Commission Priorities may in actual fact be double counted; once at the evaluation stage and again at the ranking stage. It would therefore seem unlikely that a Proposal which does not clearly address these issues would be successful under FP6. 3. European Research Area The European Research Area (ERA) is the goal of FP6 and every project must address its aims and issues if it is to be successful in gaining funding. The ERA is being formed to combat perceived weaknesses in the manner in which Europe conducts research activities. 3.1. Structuring the ERA The main factors that are seen as a weakness in the structure of European research are as follows; - Research investment - Human resources - Innovation - Regional imbalance - Fragmentation In order to combat these issues the ERA must strive to; - Reduce the competitive gap - Increase RTD efforts - Promote capacity building - Address the broad context - Strengthen coherence - Improve impact of RTD 3.2. Objectives of the ERA To qualify this further the Commission has broken the objectives of the ERA down further into five categories and given a list for each of how it views the objective will be met. The notes in the following text are mine and not the Commissions. Research Activities - Co-ordination of national / EU Programmes - Increased networking - Centres of Excellence - Large scale targeted projects Innovation - Support for research in SME's - Start-up's, dissemination of knowledge Infrastructure - European policy for construction, access and operation of research infrastructures. (note: These can be knowledge infrastructures as well as physical ones) Human Resources - Mobility (inc. third Countries) - Developing science careers - Women in Science (note: highly valued by the Commission) Science, Society and Citizens - Public understanding of science, ethics of research etc - Youth in science (note: highly valued by the Commission) 4. IST Workprogramme 2003 - 2004 4.1. Introduction This section describes the IST Workprogramme (WP) officially entitled 'Information Society Technologies - A thematic priority for Research and Development under the Specific Programme "Integrating and Strengthening the European Research Area" in the Community Sixth Framework Programme'. The title is noteworthy because it again links the entire thematic priority to the aims of the ERA (see Section 3). Please note: This MONET document has been drawn together in order to supply the reader with as much of the basic information as possible relating to IP's in IST. It is hoped that in many cases constant reference back to the original text will not be necessary. This is however not the case with the WP. The WP document should be studied with great care by anyone who is considering involvement in IST in FP6. I have drawn some of the general themes together in this section merely to give an initial overview of the documents content. 4.2. The Workprogramme and Policy Targeted research and European Community Policy; under FP6 there is no separating the two. The purpose of FP6 is to implement the ERA and further the aims of the European Community, this is stressed in the very first paragraph of the WP; "The IST thematic priority will contribute directly to realising European policies for the knowledge society as agreed at the Lisbon Council of 2000, the Stockholm Council of 2001, the Seville Council of 2002, and as reflected in the e-Europe action plan." The document then goes on to state that the focus is on, 'future generation of technologies in which computers and networks will be integrated into the everyday environment..' and also states that research efforts should be looking beyond eEurope to the '2010 goals of the Union of bringing IST applications and services to everyone, every home, every school and to all businesses.' In the following sections the titles are those in the WP and the numbers in brackets are the numbers of those sections. 4.3. IST in FP6: Coverage and Main Targets (2.2.2) The WP document goes into each of these topics in more depth but the basics are as follows; The main societal and economic challenges to be addressed are; - Solving the "trust and confidence" problems - Strengthening social cohesion - Enabling sustainable growth and improving competitiveness - Support complex problem solving This requires progress in three main technology building blocks; - Pushing the limits of miniaturisation - Developing mobile, wireless, optical and broadband communication infrastructures as well as software and computing technologies - Developing user friendly interfaces which are intuitive 4.4. Workprogramme 2002-2003: Focus on a limited set of Strategic Objectives (2.2.3) For further details on Strategic Objectives (SO's) please see Section 6 of this document. The WP document however describes the SO's as having been 'defined to mobilise researchers Europe-wide and bring together the effort necessary to address the relevant challenges'. It goes on to state that; They cover technology components, integrated systems and pull-through applications that have been carefully identified so as: - to reinforce European strengths in areas where it has established industrial and technology leadership - to overcome weakness in areas which are critical for European competitiveness and for addressing societal challenges - to exploit new opportunities and respond to emerging needs - to ensure the co-evolution of technology and applications 4.5. Focus on the fields that need to be addressed at a European level: realising the objectives of ERA in IST (2.2.4) In this section the document states that 'experience has shown that the development of common visions and consensus building is a key element of European success in IST'. Also it states that 'for each of the objectives, the Community support will focus only on the work that is essential to be done at European level and that requires a collaborative effort involving the research actors across the Union and associated states'. Please note, the italics are the Commissions emphasis and not mine. 4.6. SME's and ACC's Two further issues that are specifically raised are the inclusion of SME's and associate candidate countries (ACC's). With regard to SME's the Commissions states that their participation 'in the IST research activities is essential given their role in promoting innovation in this field.' The document stresses the importance of their involvement in all FP6 instruments but 'particularly in Integrated Projects'. The Commission also encourages the participation of ACC's in all FP6 Instruments but further states that, 'their participation in IST will be expressly encouraged, in particular with a view to facilitate their integration in eEurope2005 and eEurope+'. 4.7. Specific Details of Strategic Objectives The WP 2003-04 contains specific details of what the Commission expects to see included in the IST Proposals for FP6. All of the SO's are described and should be closely reviewed by any party wishing to submit to this call. For reference I have included the SO on 'eSafety for Road and Air Transport', primarily because this is possibly MONET's first involvement through the Automotive Task group. Again the number in brackets is the relevant section number of the WP. 4.7.1. eSafety for Road and Air Transport (2.3.1.10) Objective: To develop, test and assess an integrated and global approach to intelligent road vehicles and aircraft which offers higher safety and value added services, where interactions between the person in control, the vehicle and the information infrastructure are addressed in an integrated way. Focus is on: - Research on advanced sensors and communication systems as well as highly dependable software and interfaces to integrate on-board safety systems that assist the driver in road vehicle control; advanced airborne collision avoidance systems for aircraft. - For road transport, research in distributed intelligent agents, secure communications and advanced positioning and mapping technologies and their integration for supporting the provision of location based value added services. - For road and air transport, work on vehicle and information infrastructure management systems with emphasis on safety and efficiency. Proposals will describe how relevant results from non-EU programmes (e.g. PREDIT, Mobilitaet und Verkehr, EUREKA etc) will be combined to contribute to this task. National and regional test infrastructure should also be incorporated where appropriate. Projects should aim at fostering partnership between advanced research laboratories from the road or air transport industry, telecommunication industry, infrastructure operators, equipment and service providers and users. Coordination will be maintained with other relevant FP6 thematic priorities, notably within thematic priorities 4 and 6. It is expected that the research domains will be covered mainly with Integrated Projects as well as a few STREPs. 4.8. CALL FICHES (WP Section 2.7) A- Call 1 1) Specific Programme: Integrating and Strengthening the European Research Area 2) Activity: Thematic priority area: Information Society Technologies 3) Call title: CallI of the 1ST priority 4) Call identifier: IST/2003/01 5) Date of publication : 17.12.2002 6) Closure dates : 24.4.2003 at 17.00 (Brussels local time) 7) Total indicative budget: l070 MEuro 8) Distribution of budget per area: 80% of the budget of this call is pre-distributed on the different areas covered including each of the Strategic Objectives, FET, Research Networking test beds and general accompanying actions. This provides an indication of the effort that will be devoted to each of these areas. The remaining 20% are not pre-allocated to a specific area. They will be allocated after the call based on the quality of proposals and the relevance of the suggested work. The table in point 10 shows the distribution of the pre-allocated budgets per area. 9) Distribution per instrument: The overall indicative budget distribution between instruments is: 2/3 of the budget for the new instruments (NoEs and IPs) and 1/3 for the traditional instruments 10) Areas addressed in the Call The table below indicates the areas open and the distribution of the pre-allocated budget on these areas: please see this document for table   11) Minimum number of participants Instrument Minimum number IPs, NoEs, STREPs and CAs 3 independent legal entities from 3 different MS or AS, with at least 2 MS or ACC Specific support actions 1 legal entity (note: MS = Member States of the EU ; AS (incl. ACC) = Associated States; ACC : Associated candidate countries.) 12) Restrictions to Participation: None. 13) Consortium agreement: Participants in RTD actions resulting from this call are required to conclude a consortium agreement. 14) Evaluation procedure: - the evaluation shall follow a one stage procedure - proposals will not be evaluated anonymously 15) Evaluation criteria: - See the section on evaluation criteria in paragraph 2.5 of this Workprogramme and the weights and thresholds below 16) Indicative evaluation and selection delays: evaluation results: 2 months after the relevant closure date (Note: With reference to Section 15, the Workprogramme did not contain any weights and thresholds.) 5. Calls for Proposals 5.1. Introduction There will be three Calls for Proposls over the first two years of FP6; however we only have precise details for the first two. The Publication dates may vary by a day or two, due to decision times (or issues with translations) however the Closing dates are fixed and will be ruthlessly adhered to. See Section 9.3 on Administrative Eligibility Checks. The submission address has changed from FP5 so if you are submitting by post then send your proposal to the exact address set out in the specific call text. Call Publications Date Closing date Call One 17th December 2002 17h00 24th April 2003 Call Two 17th June 2003 17h00 15th October 2003 Joint Call for Product design & manufacturing 2010 (Two Stage) 17th December 2002 First Stage 24th April 2003 Second Stage 16th September 2003* Continuous Call (FET Open and Grants) 17th December 2002 Open by February 2003 * The Work Programme actually states 16 / 9 / 2002. I am assuming (mainly due to the fact that this is before the Publication date) that this is a typo and they actually mean 2003. 5.2. Call Budgets Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 Indicative Commitment Budget 835,000 891,000 935,000 964,000 Calls per year 2 calls, covering 2003 and 2004 budgets One call, drawing mainly on 2005 budget To be defined To be defined   6. Strategic Objectives The Calls will be split into research areas called Strategic Objectives (SO's), every SO will be covered in each pair of Calls. The Commission has been very clear on the point that these SO's are the only subject areas in which they will accept proposals, so there is no point whatsoever in submitting a proposal if it does not fall firmly within one of the SO's of the Calls. The Commission have, however, stated that there will be the opportunity to submit a proposal across more than one Objective area. This statement was then followed by them stating that despite their intention to allow this, they 'strongly advise' that the 'primary' Objective area is clearly defined. It now appears almost certain that the Commission will change the SO's throughout the lifetime of FP6; this will most probably be done by re-issuing a Call for Expressions of Interest. This means that you can not rely on future Calls to contain a specific SO and so if your area of research is covered by the current call then it would seem highly advisable to assume this is the last chance you will have to submit a proposal for it. There has been mention by the Commission of a possible third 'Corrective Call' at the end of 2003 to 'sweep up', as they put it, any SO's that were not fully subscribed to in the first call, but there is no certainty yet as to whether this will happen or not. 6.1. Call One Strategic Objectives Pushing the limits of CMOS, preparing for post-CMOS Micro & nano-systems Broadband access for All Mobile and wireless systems beyond 3G Towards a global dependability & security framework Multimodal interfaces Semantic-based knowledge systems Networked audiovisual & home platforms eSafety for road and air transports eHealth Technology enhanced learning & access to cultural heritage FET proactive + Accompanying actions 6.2. Call Two Strategic Objectives Advanced displays Optical, opto-electronic, photonic functional components Open development platforms for software and services Cognitive systems Embedded systems Applications & services for the mobile user and worker Cross-media content for leisure and entertainment GRID-based Systems & solving complex problems Improving Risk management eInclusion FET Proactive + Research Networking + Accompanying actions Strategic Objective 'Product design & manufacturing 2010' has been moved to form a join call with Priority 3 'Nano-technologies, Materials, Products (NMP) and will follow the Two Stage proposal submission process.' 7. IST The second Thematic Priority (TP2) is that of Information Society Technologies and has been given a budget of 3600 Million Euro. What follows is a brief introduction to the basic themes of IST and how we shall meet the Commissions stated intention that it expects 'Applied IST to address major societal and economic challenges'. 7.1. Main Objectives - Strengthening Europe's competitiveness and technology base - Building the information and knowledge society for ALL 7.2. Strategy - Concentration and focus, building critical mass - Capitalise on Europe's strengths - Visionary, forward looking (longer term / higher risk) - Combine flexibility with greater speed in implementation - Core technologies and "pull-through" applications 7.3. The IST Vision This is a list of factors that the Commission feels describes today's IST and how it feels these factors should evolve into the IST of tomorrow. IST Today The IST in FP6 Vision PC based "Our surrounding" is the interface Writing and reading Use all senses, intuitive "Word" based information search Context-based knowledge handling Low bandwidth, separate networks Infinite bandwidth, convergence Mobile telephony (voice) Mobile / Wireless full multimedia Micro scale Nano-scale Silicon based + new materials e-Service just emerging Wide adoption (e-Health, Learning..) < 10% of world population on-line World-wide adoption 8. Integrated Projects 8.1. Requirements In order to attain the aims of FP6 and create the ERA Integrated Projects must have a required level of competence. Although there is actually a minimum of three members and no minimum project size, the Commission has issued guidelines as to how it views the required shape and size of the Projects in FP6. Large scale targeted research programmes 10 to 25 partners, €10-30 Million over 3 to 5 years Organised around a core consortium Detailed plan for 18 months and general overall plan Must include non-research activities (Training, PUS) Flexibility to adapt consortia and activities Grant to budget - not specified by partner 9. Evaluation Much of the following text is taken from the 'Manual of Proposal Evaluation Procedures: Internal Document of the Working Group on Evaluation Policy and Procedures'. This document is still in draft form but it does express clearly and concisely the basic proposal evaluation criteria. 9.1. Evaluation Criteria The following text is directly quoted from the Evaluation Manual, below is the section specifically on the evaluation of IP's (Quoted from Annex F). Please be aware that when marking the proposal and applying the weightings each one of these following sets of criteria will be counted as one 'block' as the Commission are calling them. They will therefore have their marks averaged so that the Proposal will have one mark against each of these blocks. The text reads; The following basic set of criteria are intended to be common to all priority themes for the evaluation of proposals for integrated projects. They will be clarified and complemented as necessary in the relevant work programmes/calls. 9.1.1. Relevance to the objectives of the programme - the extent to which the proposed project addresses the objectives of the Specific Programme in the areas open for the particular call. 9.1.2. Strategic impact The extent to which: - the proposed project is suitably ambitious in terms of its strategic impact on reinforcing competitiveness or on solving societal problems. - the innovation-related activities and exploitation and/or dissemination plans are adequate to ensure optimal use of the project results. 9.1.3. S&T excellence The extent to which: - the project has clearly defined objectives. - the objectives represent clear progress beyond the current state-of-the-art. - the proposed S&T approach is likely to enable the project to achieve its objectives in research and innovation. 9.1.4. Quality of the consortium The extent to which: - the participants collectively constitute a consortium of high quality. - the participants are well-suited and committed to the tasks assigned to them. - there is good complementarity between participants. - the involvement of SME's is optimal to achieve the objectives of the project. 9.1.5. Quality of the management The extent to which: - the organisational structure is well-matched to the complexity of the project and to the degree of integration required. - the project management is demonstrably of high quality. - there is a satisfactory plan for the management of knowledge, of intellectual property and of other innovation-related activities. 9.1.6. Mobilisation of resources The extent to which: - the project foresees the critical mass of resources (personnel, equipment, finance…) necessary for success. - the resources are convincingly integrated to form a coherent project. - the financial plan is adequate. 9.2. Overview of evaluation This text is again directly quoted from the Evaluation Manual. Each evaluation session consists of a number of steps (some of which are optional), independently of whether the process involves a single stage or a two-stage submission procedure: 9.2.1. Step 1: Briefing of the evaluators (obligatory) All evaluators are briefed before the evaluation by Commission staff, orally or in writing, in order to inform them of the general evaluation guidelines and the specific conditions of the call. 9.2.2. Step 2: Individual evaluation of proposals (obligatory) Each proposal is evaluated independently by several experts who fill in individual evaluation forms giving marks and providing comments for each block of criteria. 9.2.3. Step 3: Consensus (obligatory) For each proposal a consensus report is written by a rapporteur. The report faithfully reflects the opinions of all individual evaluators and is usually written following a consensus discussion between the evaluators. 9.2.4. Step 4: Ranking list (obligatory) Following the individual evaluation and the consensus for all proposals, the Commission services draw up a draft ranking list, which reflects the outcome of the evaluations. The Commission services may ask for additional advice in this matter from a panel or may proceed with setting up the list directly. Weightings and thresholds may be applied at this stage to arrive at an overall score for each proposal. 9.2.5. Step 5: Panel evaluation (optional) A panel discussion may be convened including hearings with the submitters of those proposals that have passed a certain threshold. These hearings serve to improve the understanding by the evaluators of the proposals by clarifying points in a direct discussion. The panel may be convened, if necessary, to examine and compare the consensus reports in a given area and make recommendations on possible clustering or combination of proposals. 9.3. Administrative Eligibility Check The first step in the evaluation process for each proposal (described above in Section 9.2.2) is an administrative eligibility check; this is for the Commission to verify that all proposals are fit for the evaluation process. These criteria are significant as they are the only validity checking criteria and they will be rigorously enforced. It is also important to note that there may be additional eligibility criteria described in the call for proposals itself. The Manual for Proposal Evaluation gives the three initial eligibility checks, please note that the 'nb' below is part of the original text and originates from the Commission; - date and time of receipt of proposal on or before deadline for reception, if applicable. Faxed versions of proposals are not eligible. - minimum number of eligible, non-affiliated partners, as referred to in the call for proposals. - completeness of the proposal, i.e. the presence of all requested administrative forms and the proposal description (N.B. the completeness of the information contained in the proposal description will be for the evaluators to judge; the eligibility checks only apply to the presence of the appropriate parts of the proposal). The Commission has stressed on more than one occasion that it will not accept any non-compliance with these criteria for any reason. Even if the Commissions own server fails and prevents on-line submission in time, it will not constitute a viable excuse. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure the proposal arrives on time and to the exact address given in the call for proposals. Deadlines for this are absolute and will be enforced to the minute. 9.4. Evaluation Criteria in the Work Programme / Call Additional criteria may be specified in both the Work Programme and the Call for Proposals, these texts may suggest questions which proposers should ask themselves and therefore also justify in the text of the proposal. This is worth restating because the Evaluators will be aware of this information and therefore will be expecting to see it in the Proposal. It would therefore seem reasonable to assume that it would significantly harm a proposals chance of success if this data were not present. The Manual also states that any proposal which does not satisfy any special requirements of the Work Programme / Call "shall not be selected" to go further in the evaluation process. 9.5. Gender and Ethical Issues The Evaluation Manual mentions these two factors frequently and they are also given their own sections. These sections ask a simple question; 'Are there gender / ethical issues associated with the subject of the proposal? If so, have they been adequately taken into account?' The Commission appears to give these issue similar weighting and states in the text of the Manual that "..the Commission reserves the right not to continue with the evaluation of any proposal which is found not to fulfil one or more of the above requirements." i.e. gender or ethical issues. 9.6. The Proposal Evaluators Themselves As well as requiring confidentiality issues, Commission staff are further charged to execute there duties thus (direct quotation); In selecting experts for the evaluation of proposals, Commission staff further ensure: - the appropriate range of competencies required - an appropriate balance between academic and industrial expertise and users - a reasonable gender balance - a reasonable distribution of geographical origins of experts - regular rotation of experts between evaluations It is therefore important to remember that the evaluators will probably not be from directly within the field in which your project sits. So try to avoid excessively complex academic / industrial language and more importantly remember that the evaluators first language may not be English. For these reasons the proposal must be carefully worded so that, although the technical complexity and value of the project is made evident, it is done in such a way that the Evaluators fully understand what is being said. 10. Useful Links The Model Contract Working Group (Updated 18/11/2002): http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6/working-groups/model-contract/index_en.html Introduction to the instruments available for implementing the FP6 priority thematic areas. Speaking notes. Draft 2002 edition (Updated 11/11/2002): http://dbs.cordis.lu/fep-cgi/srchidadb?ACTION=D&SESSION=&DOC=1&TBL=EN_DOCS&RCN=EN_RCN:1844005&CALLER=FP6_LIB Provisions for implementing integrated projects: Background document. Draft 2002 edition (Updated 11/11/2002): http://dbs.cordis.lu/fep-cgi/srchidadb?ACTION=D&SESSION=&DOC=1&TBL=EN_DOCS&RCN=EN_RCN:1845005&CALLER=FP6_LIB Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities in.. the implementation of the European Community sixth framework programme (2002-2006) (Updated 30/09/2002) http://dbs.cordis.lu/fep-cgi/srchidadb?ACTION=D&SESSION=&DOC=1&TBL=EN_DOCS&RCN=EN_RCN:1890005&CALLER=FP6_LIB Council decision of 30.09.02 adopting a specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration: "Integrating and strengthening the European Research Area" (2002-2006). (2002/834/EC) http://dbs.cordis.lu/fep-cgi/srchidadb?ACTION=D&SESSION=&DOC=1&TBL=EN_DOCS&RCN=EN_RCN:1883005&CALLER=FP6_LIB 11. Unwritten Rules This section is dedicated to information which, although has not been located in any text, has been mentioned by the Commission or other informed body on more than one occasion. - No one country should receive more than 40% of the funds from a FP6 Project. - The Commission prefers 'Industrial' style Projects to have Industrial Co-ordinators. Although the Project Management Team does not necessarily have to be at the Co-ordinator and can be run by another partner. - The Commission may mark down a consortium containing Institutions / Organisations who have signed up to more than one FP6 Consortium Agreement.
[Page top] Any problems with this page please contact: Web maintainer Page last updated: Dec 12, 2002