Consortium agreements in ERA COFUND Actions Model Consortium Agreement by ERA LEARN M-ERA.NET 2 practical experiences

Transcription

1 Consortium agreements in ERA COFUND Actions Model Consortium Agreement by ERA LEARN M-ERA.NET 2 practical experiences Roland Brandenburg, FFG NCP academy 25 Jan

2 Content Overview P2P ERA-NET Cofund Scheme Who can participate Eligible Costs and EC Contribution Use of EC-Contribution Model Consortium Agreement by ERA-LEARN Example M-ERA.NET 2 Consortium Agreement 2

3 P2P Landscape total call budget since 2004: almost 5.1 billion (excluding EU contributions) EU contribution to joint calls around 1.15 billion since

4 ERA-NET Cofund Currently: 27 ERA-NET Cofund networks several of the networks have been initiated by JPIs Main themes: Health, Environment, Energy 4

5 History of ERA-NET Cofund FP6: ERA-NET Funding of costs related to the coordination of national research programmes, 100% reimbursement rate for coordination and management costs FP7: ERA-NET and ERA-NET Plus ERA-NET: as under FP6 ERA-NET Plus: co-funding of a single joint call for trans-national proposals, 33% reimbursement rate for the costs of funding the projects Horizon 2020: ERA-NET Cofund Co-funding of a single joint call for trans-national proposals, in addition other joint activities including other joint calls without Union co-funding, 33% reimbursement rate 5

6 ERA-NET Cofund main features ERA-NET Cofund: implementation of a co-funded joint call for proposals (compulsory, one co-funded call per Grant Agreement) EU contribution: mainly a proportional contribution to total public funding of the joint call Additional EU contribution to coordination costs on the basis of a unit costs for additional activities including additional calls without top-up funding Stable reimbursement rate: ERA-NET Plus reimbursement rate from FP7 (33%) applies Co-funded calls: proposal evaluation and selection according to Horizon 2020 standards 6

7 Who can participate? Participants in ERA-NET Cofund actions must be research funders: legal entities owning or managing public research and innovation programmes. Programme Owners are typically national/regional ministries/authorities responsible for defining, financing or managing research programmes carried out at national or regional level. Programme Managers are typically research councils or funding agencies or other national or regional organisations that implement research programmes under the supervision of the programme owners. Their participation has to be mandated by the national/regional authorities in charge (normally the responsible Ministry). Only in addition to the minimum conditions, and if justified by the nature of the action, programmes funded by other entities (international programmes, foundations or other non-public programmes) may participate. 7

8 ERA-NET Cofund Types A. Implementation of a single joint call (MS contribution in cash) B. Implementation of a single joint call (MS contribution in cash) and additional activities C. Implementation of a single joint call (MS contribution in kind) In exceptional cases Call for proposals organised by national/regional funding agencies Activities: call preparation, implementation and follow-up Eligible costs: financial support paid to third parties Call and activities as in A. Additional joint activities including additional joint calls without Union topup funding. Eligible costs: financial support paid to third parties and coordination costs for additional activities (unit costs per beneficiary per year). Call for proposals organised by governmental research organisations Beneficiaries carry out the projects resulting from the call themselves Eligible costs: costs of trans-national projects on the basis of Horizon 2020 rules In-kind contributions: non-reimbursed expenditure 8

9 ERA-NET COFUND eligible costs and EC contribution(1) The EC contribution is calculated on the basis of the eligible costs. There are 3 types of eligible costs: a) direct costs related to transnational projects; b) direct coordination costs for of additional activities; c) indirect costs. a) = the total funding transferred to the transnational projects funded from the 1 cofunded call b) = a lump sum of per beneficiary per year (so-called Unit Costs) if a beneficiary is involved in additional activities c) = a flat rate of 25% on top of the Unit Costs b) 9

10 ERA-NET COFUND eligible costs and EC contribution(2) Option 1: 1 cofunded call only, no other activities during 5 years EC contribution = top-up funding nat/reg contribution Option 2: 1 cofunded call + other joint activities (e.g. other joint calls) Top-up funding EC contribution = top-up funding + unit costs compulsory 1 cofunded call voluntary additional joint calls nat/reg contribution lump sum (unit costs) year 1 year 2 year 3 year 4 year 5 10

11 ERA-NET-COFUND eligible costs and EC contribution (3) The EC contribution is max. 33% (or less!) of the total eligible costs. Example without additional activities: Beneficary Direct costs of providing financial support to third parties related to transnational projects Example with additional activities: Total eligible costs Reimburse ment rate EC contribution % % % % % Total Direct costs of providing financial support to third parties related to Units Indirect Total eligible Reimburse Beneficary transnational projects (ie. years) Total Unit Costs costs costs ment rate EC contribution % % % % % Total

12 NMP (M-ERA.NET 2): fixed max M EC contribution max. 20% (ie of M ) unit costs for other joint activities fixed: MEUR EC contribution min M EC top-up of 1 cofunded call (= 33% of total call budget) min. needed 20.7 M nat/reg contribution for 1 co-funded call (= 67% of total call budget) min M total budget of 1 cofunded call (= 100%) 12

13 The max. EC contribution is calculated on the basis of the preliminary nat./reg. commitments from EU member states & associated states & third countries eligible for EC contribution (see list of countries 1 ) at the time of submitting the proposal. The EC funding rate for ERA-NET COFUND is up to 33%. However, in case of relatively high nat./reg. commitments and a relatively small EC contribution (fixed in the H2020 work programme) the actual EC funding rate could be less than 33%. Template for ERA-NET COFUND proposals: ERA-NET-COFUND Calculation of EC contribution (1) 1 Eligible for funding: 13

14 ERA-NET-COFUND Calculation of EC contribution (2) Some third countries (high-income countries) can participate but their commitments are not considered for calculating the EC contribution 1. Structural funds (ESIF) are also not eligible for EC top-up funding. Example: national commitment AUSTRIA (EU member) regional commitment BELGIUM-WALLONIA (EU member) national commitment FRANCE (EU member) national commitment SOUTH AFRICA (third country eligible for EC funding) regional commitment (struct.funds) REGIONE CALABRIA (EU member but uses ESIF) national commitment SWITZERLAND (third country not eligible for EC funding) national commitment TURKEY (H2020 associated state) national commitment USA (third country not eligible for EC funding) total national/regional commitments but: total funding EU members + associated states + elig. 3 rd countr (=67%) max. EC contribution (based on EU MS + AS + elig. 3 rd c.) (=33%) Total contributions EU MS + AS + elig. 3 rd c. + EC top-up (=100%) Total call budget to receive an EC contribution of 3.3 M the national/regional committed funding from EU members + associated states + eligible third countries must be at least 6.7 M. 1 Eligible for funding: 14

15 ERA-NET COFUND Use of EC contribution (1) The calculation of the EC contribution is always based on the eligible costs but the actual use of the EC contribution is up to the consortium. The practical terms of using the EC contribution - often called black box are defined in the Consortium Agreement. The maximum EC contribution cannot exceed the absolute amount defined in the Grant Agreement but it can actually become less than 33% depending on the absolute national/regional contributions. The consortium can decide to use part of the EC contribution to cover the implementation cost of the ERA-NET COFUND; in this case the EC funding rate related to transnational projects will decrease correspondingly; the gap has to be filled with additional national/regional project funding. 15

16 Scenario 1: consortium of 41 partners; all 41 partners participate in other joint activities every year during 5 years total unit costs = 41 x 5 x = = 2.45 M fixed: M EC contribution 2.45 M unit costs for other joint activities = M EC top-up of the 1 co-funded call (= max. 33% ) 1) 2) min M total budget of 1 co-funded call (= 100%) 3) minimum M nat/reg contribution for 1 co-funded call (= min. 67%; if nat/reg funding is >20.91M the percentage increases since the EC contribution does not change) EC top up <33% 16

17 Scenario 3: the consortium needs more resources for coordination than the 20% limit borrow extra resources (e.g. 1 M ) for coordination from EC top-up and replace the same amount with nat/reg RTD funding fixed: M EC contribution (20% limit) really needed >2.45 M unit costs for other joint activities borrow 1 M from EC for coordination of other joint activities 1) = 9.30 M EC top-up of 1 co-funded call (= 29.9% ) M total budget of 1 co-funded call (= 100%) 2) = M nat/reg contribution for 1 co-funded call (= 70.1%) 3) add 1 M nat/reg RTD funding 17

18 unit costs for other joint activities =max 20% of 9.23 M = M instead of 2.45 M Scenario 4a: the actually spent nat/reg funding is less than expected (e.g. imbalance between partners, lack of proposals after stage 1) AND less than the minimum needed this will reduce the EC top-up and consequently the max 20% unit costs. example: real nat/reg funding is only 15 M (instead of committed M ) EC contribution cannot exceed 9.23 M actual EC contribution: = 9.23 M 2) actual EC top-up of 1 co-funded call (= max. 33% of call budget) is less than planned (e.g M instead of M ); the top-up is also min. 80% of the total EC contribution EC contribution =max M ) actual nat/reg contribution for 1 co-funded call (= 67%) is less than the requested minimum (e.g. 15 M instead of M ) mitigation measure: initial nat/reg commitments should be higher than the theoretical minimum 18 1)

19 unit costs for other joint activities cannot exceed 20% of the EC contribution and will also be less than originally planned Scenario 4b: the ranking list has a gap (e.g. nat interference with ranking list, lack of funding in some countries, oversubscription) the EC top-up will be calculated based only on nat/reg funding before the gap. If the gap occurs before the minimum nat/reg funding could be spent this will automatically reduce the EC top-up and consequently the max 20% unit costs (see scenario 4a) 2) actual EC top-up of 1 co-funded call (=max. 33% ) is re-calculated correspondingly and will be less than originally planned because of a gap in the ranking list the actual nat/reg contribution for 1 cofunded call (= min. 67%) is less than originally committed mitigation measures: 1) avoid gaps through wellelaborated evaluation procedure 2) fill gaps through EC top-up 1) 19

20 Background: ERA-NET Cofund distribution of EC top-up (I) EC rule: It is up to the consortium to decide how the EC top-up to the cofunded call is distributed. Option 1: 100% of the EC top-up is used as a VIRTUAL common pot all nat/reg budgets are topped-up by the same factor, e.g. 49% (1 M 1.49 M ; 0.5 M M, etc) + : fixed return - : small budgets will still be small budgets even with EC top up these are risks in the ranking list. 20

21 Background: ERA-NET Cofund distribution of EC top-up (I) EC rule: It is up to the consortium to decide how the EC top-up to the cofunded call is distributed. Option 2: 100% of the EC top-up is used as a REAL common pot the entire EC top-up is used to fill gaps in the ranking list, no matter which countries + : most effective gap filling mechanism - : the resulting individual nat/reg topup factors cannot be predicted and will range from 0% to any upper limit some partners will find this unfair. 21

22 Option 3: mixed mode the EC top-up is used both as a virtual and as a real common pot fixed return AND gap filling Examples: Background: ERA-NET Cofund distribution of EC top-up (II) 80% of EC contribution is used to top-up nat/reg budgets by a constant factor (virtual common pot) 20% of EC contribution is used to fill gaps (real common pot) 65% of EC contribution is used to top-up nat/reg budgets by a constant factor (virtual common pot) 35% of EC contribution is used to fill gaps (real common pot) 25% virtual common pot 75% of EC contribution is used to fill gaps (real common pot) the consortium decides which proportion is likely to deliver the most convenient result (=max. number of funded proposals AND fixed return) 22

23 Model Consortium Agreement (CA) The consortium agreements should be signed before the grant agreement. They cover issues that will or may arise during the project. The ERA-LEARN template for an ERA-NET Cofund Consortium Agreement is based on the DESCA Model but adapted according to the ERA-NET Cofund needs. Governance structure (structure, procedures, decision taking) Financial provisions (Payments, budgeting, insufficient financial contribution of the EC) Call implementation (selection process, use of EU-Top-Up funding for transnational projects, ranking list, conflicts of interests, contractual obligations towards EC on selection, contractual obligations for projects funded in the joint call) 23

24 General governance structure: CA - Governance structure (structure, procedures, decision taking) General Assembly, Executive Board, Call Secretariat, The Coordinator Voting rules DESCA: Each Member of a Consortium Body present or represented in the meeting shall have one vote ERA-NET Cofund Examples: One vote for each network member One vote per country One vote per national/regional funding programme Distinguish between call and other topics: E.g.: In the case of decisions regarding the Cofunded Call or the additional calls, voting rights are limited to those network member taking part in the respective call. 24

25 ERA-NET COFUND CA - Financial provisions (I) Budgeting: 4 Options costs are included in model Each Option include rules for: Implementation costs (How to share, how to Justify) Unit costs Support to trans-national projects National/ regional budget of the co-funded joint call Payment Schedule - a liquidity plan is recommended ( 25

26 ERA-NET COFUND CA - Financial provisions (II) It is up to the consortium to agree on how to cover the implementation costs ERA-LEARN identified in a study 4 main options which are in use by the existing ERA-NET COFUND networks These 4 options are included in the template for an ERA-NET COFUND Consortium Agreement

27 ERA-NET-COFUND CA Implementation Costs (and use of EC funding) Overview: 4 main options have been identified/applied by consortia: Option 1: Only a defined group of parties may claim implementation costs. The EC contribution for Unit costs and the related indirect costs will be paid to each of the parties according to their involvement in additional activities. Option 2: Costs of each party are calculated. These costs are subtracted from the EC contribution. Option 3: Each of the parties contributes with its Unit Costs and a specific additional agreed budget to the implementation costs Option 4: Implementation costs are covered with the EC contribution (Unit costs and EU-Top-up), travel/subsistence budget is foreseen for attending network meetings; reserve fund for additional activities

28 ERA-NET COFUND CA - Call implementation Evaluation of pre-proposals: assessments at national and/or transnational level Limited oversubscription: The selected pre-proposals should not exceed the proposed total individual national/regional budget of the Joint Call by a factor of more than xx Obligation to commit higher national/regional budget Use of EU-Top-up funding for transnational projects: virtual pot, common pot, balancing pot (mixed mode) Conflicts of interests Contractual obligations towards EC on selection Contractual obligations for projects funded in the Cofunded Call 28

29 Model Consortium Agreement (CA) The consortium agreements should be signed before the grant agreement. They cover issues that will or may arise during the project. The template for an ERA-NET Cofund Consortium Agreement on is based on the DESCA Model but adapted according to the ERA- NET Cofund needs. Governance structure (structure, procedures, decision taking) Financial provisions (Payments, budgeting, insufficient financial contribution of the EC) Call implementation (selection process, use of EU-Top-Up funding for transnational projects, ranking list, conflicts of interests, contractual obligations towards EC on selection, contractual obligations for projects funded in the joint call) 29

30 3/2016-2/2021 EC contribution mio Example: M-ERA-NET 2 ERA-NET COFUND for materials research and innovation 1 cofunded call with EU top-up + additional joint activities;

31 The M-ERA.NET 2 consortium (H2020 grant agreement): 41 public funding organisations from 28 different countries 12; 27% 4; 9% 29; 64% national regional 6; 15% already active in M-ERA.NET new in M-ERA.NET 2 international + additional observer participants joining selected activities 35; 85% 21 (52%) >5 years experience

32 full documentation: Call 2012: 30 funding orgs. 23 European countries + Taiwan Call 2013: 32 funding orgs. 22 European countries + Russia + Taiwan Call 2014: 36 funding orgs. 22 European countries + Russia + Taiwan Call 2015: 35 funding orgs. 22 European countries + Brazil (Sao Paulo) + Korea + Russia + Taiwan 124 pre-proposals 72 full proposals 23 funded projects 166 pre-proposals 90 full proposals 26 funded projects 172 pre-proposals 105 full proposals 22 funded projects 156 pre-proposals 94 full proposals 22 funded projects Österreichische Forschungsförderungsgesellschaft Sensengasse Wien 32

33 Average project: 3-5 partners from 2-3 countries project costs 1 Mio EUR; duration 2-3 years

34 full documentation: Call 2016: 35 funding orgs. 22 European countries + Brazil (Sao Paulo) + Russia + South Africa + Taiwan 233 pre-proposals 89 full proposals selection meeting 23 Jan 2017: proposals will be funded depending on increase of national budgets and distribution of top up (total funding ~32 mio )

35 Partner details Funding programmes Joint calls Funded projects Events

36 coordinator FFG 41 beneficiaries GA signed Nov 2015 project start 1 March 2016 CA: final version agreed 22 Dec signatures by April signatures by Oct 2016 Example: M-ERA-NET 2 ERA-NET COFUND for materials research and innovation 1 AT FFG 2 BE VLAIO 3 BE FNRS 4 BE DGo6 5 BR FAPESP 6 CY RPF 7 DE BMBF 8 DE JÜLICH 9 DE KIT 10 EE ETAG 11 ES MINECO 12 ES IDEA 13 ES IDEPA 14 ES EJ-GV 15 ES Innobasque 16 ES ADE 17 ES fmi+d 18 FR Nouvelle Aquitaine 19 HU NKFIH 20 IE SFI 21 IL MATIMOP-ISERD 22 IS RANNIS 23 IT MIUR 24 IT CaR 25 LT RCL 26 LU FNR 27 LV VIAA 28 NL M2i 29 NL NWO 30 NO RCN 31 PL NCBR 32 PL NCN 33 PT FCT 34 RO UEFISCDI 35 RU FASIE 36 SE VINNOVA 37 SI MIZS 38 SK SAS 39 TR TÜBITAK 40 TW MoST 41 ZA DST 36

37 Example: M-ERA-NET 2 M-ERA.NET 2 CA: Specific Rules: Decision taking Voting Rules and Quorums Implementation costs/ Unit Costs Call Implementation Joint Call [M-ERA.NET Call 2016] Use of EU-Top-Up Funding for Transnational Projects 37

38 Update of the Model Consortium Agreement Planned Updates Update Payment Schedule according to new EC Schedule Include DESCA-Updates Include ways to cover the audit costs (Certificates of the financial statements) Distinguish between co-funded and non-cofunded Joint Calls Good Practice Rules indicated in other existing Consortium Agreements Suggestions from Legal NCPs?

39 Links ERA-NET COFUND: Guidelines & Practical Documentation: ERA-NET COFUND: FAQ: Contact: Roland Brandenburg: 39