CONTENTS. The FP7 "People" Programme Advisory Group The Secretariat. Brussels, November 2007 RTD-T.2 D/560651

Transcription

1 The FP7 "People" Programme Advisory Group The Secretariat Brussels, November 2007 RTD-T.2 D/ SUMMARY REPORT OF THE 8 TH MEETING OF THE ADVISORY GROUP FOR THE SPECIFIC PROGRAMME "PEOPLE" IN FP7 Brussels, 5 November 2007 CONTENTS 1. Adoption of the agenda Adoption of the summary record of the previous meeting and 2008 Work Programme Preliminary results of 2007 evaluations Co-efficient rates a presentation by EUROSTAT Outcome of the consultation on the ERA Green Paper and Lisbon Conference ERASMUS MUNDUS II Link with the Marie Curie Actions Simplification Any Other Business... 6 Appendix Simplification - Issues arising from to-days meeting (as they arose):... 8 Annex I - Agenda... 9 Annex II Membership, Participation Annex III List of Documents for the meeting

2 The Chair welcomed participants to the 8 th meeting of the People Advisory Group, and gave apologies for the Vice Chair who was unable to attend due to illness. He outlined the main purpose of the meeting, to reflect on the 2008 Work programme and look to The resignations of S. Borras and C. Ottaviani were noted. The resignation of M. Sorsa had also been announced previous to today s meeting. The Advisory Group asked if the ERC would continue to report on progress to the Group. The Commission replied that their evaluation was still in progress and that it would be reported when results will be available; and the opportunity had been taken to invite DG Education and Culture to brief on Erasmus Mundus II. 1. Adoption of the agenda The agenda was adopted as proposed. 2. Adoption of the summary record of the previous meeting The minutes of the last meeting were accepted unchanged and 2008 Work Programme The Commission introduced the 2008 PEOPLE Work Programme and the related schedule, focusing on the changes since the last meeting, after consultation with the Member States and other services of the Commission. The key changes are related to - redrafting and restructuring the text including, for example, consistent definitions - some schemes have clarified rules and simplified funding elements - IRSES is now introduced with budget - ITN return to one step evaluations, taking into account lessons learned from the first call - NIGHTS as an Action, is re-introduced for policy reasons. - All Marie Curie salary rates are increased by the rate of inflation - The coefficients for countries are updated to reflect the most current status - The last two items will be reviewed on a regular basis. The draft WP circulated will now go into the final Decision making process to the College of the Commission. The PAG discussed the introduction of inflation increases for all fellows immediately, including for ongoing fellowships. The Commission explained the intention to update the rates regularly probably annually. In FP6 the rates did not change for 5 years, and the Commission worked with the Member States to get this first change agreed rapidly. However, the Commission currently sees no option but to fix the rates at the start of each agreement for the duration of the grant agreement. The presentation by Eurostat on agenda of the meeting, will also be helpful in understanding the nature of the Correction Coefficients, and how they can reflect changes in circumstances but again the coefficient in force at the time of the grant agreement will have to be applied for the whole period. 2

3 The Commission was sympathetic to the intention of the advice, and would continue to try to find ways to be more responsive to the needs and costs of individual fellows. The Group is invited to give practical advice on this matter. The Group heard a presentation on the status of the 2007 Evaluations for each relevant Action. The relative success rates (and the overall attractiveness levels) of IRG/ERG against the other actions was discussed. The Group agreed that European Reintegration grants should be almost certain in fact could they not be appended to a fellowship and made almost automatic? Also some of the time window constraints could be relaxed. The group however raised the question whether ERG should not be made open to reintegrate other researchers than Marie Curie fellows. Concerning the high success rate of IRG, it was questioned whether they should not be more competitive and whether the success rate should not be more in line with the other MC actions. 4. Preliminary results of 2007 evaluations The Group heard a presentation on the status of the 2007 Evaluations for each relevant Action. The relative success (and the overall attractiveness levels) rates of IRG/ERG against the other actions was discussed. The Group agreed that return grants should be almost certain in fact could they not be appended to a fellowship and made almost automatic? Also some of the time window constraints could be relaxed. The Group wondered if lower than expected numbers of applicants for the first calls were a reflection of demand, or lack of marketing? Need, and Intellectual Property Rights and success rates and administration overheads were all possible reasons. NATO reported similar experiences in their schemes, and some sort of assessment needs to be retained in reintegration schemes. Some special incentives for eastern European scientists may be useful. The Commission also noted that often the peak of demand is in the 2 nd year of a new FP cycle. Also many cross-overs with the European Research Council call under the IDEAS programme may occur, which will impact volume of applications. The Commission will try to gather and review statistics on a per panel and regional basis also. The Commission reported a higher quality of proposals in ITN actions, especially in life sciences and engineering. These cover a wider area of technical areas, such as environmental engineering just as life sciences is also a wide and multi-disciplinary area. However, this resulted in a lower success rate but more budget will be applied to the area in the future. In IAPP the Group were concerned about the lack of response in certain areas, such as Chemistry. The Group asked if there was a way to ensure that all good projects can be funded in areas where applications are few? Reapplication is a tedious unreliable strategy as evaluation criteria can change. Industrial participation and especially SME participation remains an area of difficulty and more "marketing" may be needed. Negotiations are also more complex with industry where mobility is more constrained. The Commission invited the Group to propose participants to a best practice conference being planned for early The Group also asked the Commission to look at market needs, the relationship to State Aid limits, as well as communications (which is not necessarily the sole issue). Maybe there are 3

4 issues there on market failure vs. market demand, what is the role of the Marie Curie Actions here? Some of the Technology Platforms maybe a good source of such debate 1. Also, how will the MC Actions meet the SME targets 2? 5. Co-efficient rates a presentation by EUROSTAT The Group heard a presentation from Eurostat on the basis of the calculation of the correction coefficients for international mobile staff (which determines the spending basket) at the locations listed in the People Work programme. Emphasis was placed on the differences between intra-eu and extra-eu calculations and cycles of revision, and the role of "Brussels/Luxembourg" as a base level (of "100"). The nature of coefficient changes relative to the base line and the role of inflation in general were explained also. The Group asked about the Housing element. The full Intra EU coefficients take the rental impact into account, but not the extra-eu coefficients. Therefore for Marie Curie, to be consistent, the Programme Committee decided that the Commission Staff survey non-rental coefficient series is used Outcome of the consultation on the ERA Green Paper and Lisbon Conference The Group heard a presentation from the Commission about the Lisbon Conference on the "Future of Science and Technology in Europe 4 ", "Researchers" theme, and the preliminary outcome of the public consultation on the European Research Area. The presentation also placed the following European Research Area (ERA) Expert Groups in context 5 Realising a single labour market for researchers Developing world-class research infrastructures Strengthening research institutions Sharing knowledge Optimising research programmes and priorities Opening to the world: international cooperation in S&T ERA Rationales The public response gave the greatest support to the need for solving issues relating to researchers through European level action. However, at the same time the voluntary nature of systemic actions, such as the European Charter for Researchers and the Code of Conduct for their Recruitment, was stressed. The details of the presentation can be found in the document 1 The Commission notes that discussions with the Steel Technology Platform (ESTEP) have started for precisely such needs analysis, it is a two way learning process. 2 A representative from the SME Programme attended the Advisory Group for this section. 3 Including rents would increase the average cost of a Marie Curie fellowship by some 7.5% overall, an internal simulation showed. 4 See 5 See for details of each group and membership 4

5 "Preliminary Results on the Public Consultation: Green Paper on the ERA" 6 which is now available. The Commission felt that the Lisbon conference by and large echoed and reinforced the issues and priorities raised by the public stakeholder consultation. As concerns the issues related to researchers the Lisbon conference benefitted from the intermediary results of the work of the ERA expert group on researchers. The overall impression is that concrete progress could be boosted by concentrating future work on a limited number of key areas, including social security, open, competitive driven recruitment and working conditions. The Commission is expected to put forward further concrete ideas on this in the spring of The 2009 People Work programme will be a major opportunity to reflect the Community support to further actions on researchers in the frame of the ERA. The Chair noted the overlap of membership of the Advisory Group People with that of the ERA Expert Group on researchers and underlined that this was indeed an opportunity to reflect also in the AG People on key ideas on the further development of ERA in relation to the future Marie Curie Actions. Some discussion took place on the effectiveness of European level action in the area of researchers other than through financial instruments, where the "scientific visa" was raised as a "success", while the current situation in reality was not seen as very positive. The Commission reminded the Group of the fact that the major benefits of the Directive on "scientific visa" in practice were still to be delivered, and no doubt would be, since Member States have until the end of 2007 to transpose the Directive into national legislation. As with other measures concerning researchers, the real important issue is the commitment and engagement of Member States and stakeholders to progress. The Group agreed to review the opportunities that the further actions in frame of ERA (including the evidence-base developed in that frame) could offer for the deliberations on the People WP 2009 and expressed its interest in the developing its advice on this in due course. 7. ERASMUS MUNDUS II Link with the Marie Curie Actions The Group heard a presentation about the Erasmus Mundus II programme as proposed by DG EAC. The programme builds on the experience of the first programme which ends this year. The budget is almost double for the next 5 years, and the European participants and the 3 rd country participants will be more equitable. Currently some 100+ master programmes are funded and some 6,000 Students incoming and 4,000 outgoing are trained. The Commission has thus decided to consolidate the current activities while also extending them and adding a new dimension to the programme. The activities of the new programme will be: The support of joint programmes of outstanding academic quality at Master's and Doctoral level, including a scholarship scheme for high-calibre EU and thirdcountry students and academics; The promotion of partnerships between European and third-country universities in specific world regions as a basis for structured co-operation, transfer of know-how, exchange and mobility at all levels of higher education; 6 See and guilanguage=en 5

6 The support of measures which will help to enhance the world-wide appeal of Europe as an educational destination. The main new features of the programme proposal are: More opportunities and variety in the institutional cooperation modalities between European and third-country universities and in the individual mobility scheme; Extension of Erasmus Mundus to doctoral studies and, partially, to the undergraduate level; Stronger financial support for European students through the offer of more attractive scholarships. The Commission will now negotiate the new proposal 7 with the Council and the European Parliament. The new programme should be adopted in 2008 and enter into force in January 2009 when the current programme expires. This timing will avoid any disruption of cooperation activities during the transition from the current to the future programme. The Group raised issues of overlap and if these students would be eligible for terms and conditions as for the "Charter and Code". The Commission notes that some countries have very beneficial "Student" status, and some do not, a single rule is difficult. The Commissions notes that one of the lasting features of the programme is the requirement for mutual recognition of qualifications amongst participants. The Group notes with interest that the whole programme will be executed by an Agency on behalf of the Commission. 8. Simplification This is an announcement by the Directorate to tackle the issue in the framework of the 2009 Work Programme revision. The Commission will prepare for the next meeting a brief document with the lessons learned from the evaluations so far and some key points arising out of the meeting today, as input for the substantial discussions at the next meeting. This will be circulated for preparing a substantive discussion at the next meeting. Many issues discussed to-day will be reviewed in this context. 9. Any Other Business The provisional dates for 2008 selected were March 6 th (agreed last time), June 13 th and October 10 th, The next meeting will focus on the 2009 WP and beyond. The Commission asked the Group to note that - a new logo was available for Marie Curie Actions, to be used at all opportunities. - documents received in the course of the advisory meetings are not for further dissemination unless stated as public - the 26 th September 2008 is the next NIGHTS day - the 30 th November 2008 is planned to be a major launch date for ca 40 calls including 5 PEOPLE calls; but COFUND launches on November 16 th under the Work Programme - However the Proposal Submission system will be closed from then until just before Christmas, but this is a planned down time to enable it to move premises. 7 For details see 6

7 The Chair and the Commission thanked Prof. Sorsa for her long time contribution to the Advisory Group, as she will resign after this meeting. She encouraged the group to continue with parting advice: - Inspiration for good scientific ideas - Imagination for future actions and for Europe. - Independence but close collaboration with the Commission The meeting finished at 16:30. 7

8 Appendix Simplification - Issues arising from to-days meeting (as they arose): How to include rates of inflation and annual coefficients into multi-annual contracts. Should IRG ERG assessment be relaxed or sharpened, should ERG be opened to non Marie Curie fellows, should the two schemes be merged and made identical? Should the IRG/ERG rates be graduated? Should the IRG/ERG time windows and conditions be moderated? Scheme for incoming fellowships COFUNDING third country programmes to introduce researches into the EU Scheme for researchers of the "third age"? How to Accelerate Scientific Visa uptake, what can be done practically achieved Is there a way that effectively all Industry proposals that pass evaluations can be funded? Do the EU-10 and/or European neighbourhood countries require special incentives or schemes? Are there any actions that can be skipped or amalgamated? Can the Commission review "market" NEEDS for Marie Curie Actions Is simpler language possible somewhere for Guides for Applicants and Work Programme in such areas, with the "legal and formal" elements pushed down? How can the Charter and Code be adopted quicker while still voluntary? How can a pan-european pension fund be built up for researchers? How can we make Europe as a whole attractive to the best global researchers? How to implement return phases? Draconian conditions impose penalties on host organisations, not on the fellows, can it be simplified? The Secretariat is operated by the Commission Services, but all documents, opinions and whatsoever commentary and publications are produced by or for the group; these are the opinions of the individuals of the Group alone. The "People" AG Secretariat is staffed by Mike Rogers (Tel: , ec.europa.eu ) and Liz Vesterlund (Tel , ec.europa.eu, Fax: ). Please contact us by for any help and support we can offer you. 8

9 Annex I - Agenda DRAFT AGENDA 8TH MEETING OF THE ADVISORY GROUP PEOPLE BRUSSELS 5 NOVEMBER 2007 ( ) BUILDING: CCAB, RUE FROISSART 36 ROOM: 3B 1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 2. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES AND 2008 WORK PROGRAMME 4. PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF 2007 EVALUATIONS 5. OUTCOME OF THE CONSULTATION ON THE ERA GREEN PAPER AND LISBON CONFERENCE 6. CO-EFFICIENT RATES PRESENTATION BY EUROSTAT 7. ERASMUS MUNDUS II LINK WITH THE MARIE CURIE ACTIONS 8. SIMPLIFICATION 9. ANY OTHER BUSINESS 9

10 Annex II Membership, Participation Members ALBRECHT Ulrike BOOBIS Alan BORRAS Susanna BRECHOT Christian CONNERADE Jean-Patrick CORDA Daniela CURAJ Adrian EGRON-POLACK Eva GABALDON Juan GANNON Franck KOLMOS Annette MOREL Yves MYSIAK Jaroslav OTTAVIANI Carlo PEDRAZZINI Fausto QUINTANILHA Alexandre - Chair RIMINI-DÖRING Maria SAGLAMER Gulsun SAVAKIS Charalambos SEVIN Jacques SORSA Marja TARRACH Rolf VELA OLMO Carmen VERETENNICOFF Irina - Vice Chair WINTERMANTEL Margret Participation Resigned Resigned Invited experts: VERLI Angelique DG EAC DENNIS Ian - EUROSTAT VIS Cees - Dir C RTD Participation by Commission staff: LENNON T. ROGERS Mike RHODE Barbara VESTERLUND Liz BINGEN Georges ARANO Begona TACHELET Marc 10

11 Annex III List of Documents for the meeting o Agenda Agenda point 1 o Summary report of the 7 th meeting of the "People" Advisory Group Agenda point 2 o Draft 2008"People" Work Programme - rev 11 Oct Agenda point 3 o PEOPLE Work Programme Summary Agenda point 3 o PEOPLE Timetable Agenda point 3 o Presentation IAPP-ITN Agenda point 4 o Presentation Overview MC Actions Calls Agenda point 4 o Co-efficient rates Presentation by Eurostat Agenda point 5 o ERA Update Presentation by C.Vis Agenda point 6 o ERASMUS MUNDUS II Presentation by A. Verli Agenda point 7 o Estonian Mobility Study 11