FP6 employed a range of different types of instruments (projects and actions) to implement its priorities, with a different profile of instruments being used within each Priority Area. The ten instruments employed by FP6 were as follows:
• Networks of Excellence (NoEs) – Multipartner projects aimed at strengthening excellence on a research topic by networking the critical mass of resources and expertise around a joint programme of activities. They are aimed primarily at creating a progressive and lasting integration of the research activities of the network partners, while at the same time advancing knowledge on the topic
• Integrated Projects (IPs) – Multipartner projects to support objective-driven research, where the primary deliverable is knowledge for new products, processes, services, etc. They should bring together a critical mass of resources to reach ambitious goals aimed either at increasing Europe’s competitiveness or at addressing major societal needs
• Specific Targeted Research Projects (STREPs) – Multipartner research, demonstration or innovation projects to support research, technological development and demonstration or innovation activities of a more limited scope and ambition, particularly for smaller research actors and participants from candidate countries
• Coordination Actions (CAs) – Actions to promote and support the networking and coordination of research and innovation activities. They cover the definition, organisation and management of joint or common initiatives as well as organisation of conferences, meetings, the performance of studies, exchanges of personnel, the exchange and dissemination of good practices, setting up of common information systems and expert groups.
• Specific Support Actions (SSAs) – Single or multipartner activities intended to complement the implementation of FP6 and may be used to help in preparations for future Community research policy activities. The actions support conferences, seminars, studies and analyses, working groups and expert groups, operational support and dissemination, information and communication activities, or a combination of these.
• Co-operative Research Projects (CRAFT) – Undertaken for the benefit of a number of SMEs from different countries on common specific problems
• Collective Research Projects (CLR) – Carried out on behalf of industrial associations or industry groupings in sectors where SMEs are prominent, in order to expand the knowledge base of large communities of SMEs
• Integrated Infrastructure Initiatives (I3) – Combine, within a single contract, several activities essential to reinforce research infrastructures and to provide an integrated service at the European level. Covers networking activities, provision of access to transnational users, and joint research activities
• Specific Actions to Promote Research Infrastructures (II) – To support the integrated provision of infrastructure related services to the research community at European level, inducing a long-term integrating effect on the way research infrastructures operate, evolve and interact with each other and with their users, thus contributing to the development of the European Research Area
• Marie Curie Actions (MCAs) – These actions provide a variety of possibilities for individual researchers in different stages of their career as well as for institutions acting as a host for fellows B.7.1. Projects, participations and EC funding, by Type of Instrument
Figure 62 shows the numbers of projects and participations, and the volume of EC funding, achieved by UK participants within each of the 10 main types of instrument covered by the FP6 database. As with the Priority Areas, the various instruments were used to a greater or lesser degree across FP6 and so it is not possible to draw firm conclusions on the performance of UK from this table. However, in terms of numbers alone, UK participation was highest for Specific Targeted Research Projects (STREPs), Integrated Projects and Marie Curie Actions, with over 580 projects, over 1500 participations and in excess of €380 million in funding achieved by the UK for each type of instrument.
Figure 62 – UK projects, participations and EC funding, by Type of Instrument
Instrument Projects Participations EC funding (€ million)
Networks of Excellence (NoEs) 168 675 184.58
Integrated Projects (IPs) 585 2,033 875.83
Specific Targeted Research Projects (STREPs) 1,357 2,330 553.16
Coordination Actions (CAs) 349 706 68.90
Specific Support Actions (SSAs) 423 596 82.89
Co-operative Research Projects (CRAFT) 237 578 57.65
Collective Research Projects (CLR) 56 186 25.59
Integrated Infrastructure Initiatives (I3) 8 25 95.72
Specific Actions to Promote Research Infrastructures (II) 45 95 36.57
Marie Curie Actions (MCAs) 1,331 1,568 388.73
Total 4,559 8,792 2,369.64
Source: FP6 participation data (E-CORDA, 1st November 2009)
In order to place the raw numbers shown in Figure 17 in context, UK projects, participations and EC funding have been expressed as a share of the FP6 totals for each Type of Instrument. The results are shown Figure 63, and arrows (↑↔↓) have been used to symbolise whether the UK has performed comparatively strongly or less well for each Type of Instrument, as compared to the UK’s overall performance in FP6. For example, across FP6 as a whole the UK participated in 45.3% of the projects, so we can say that a project participation rate of 60% within STREPs is ‘above’ average (↑) while involvement in 31% of the Specific Support Actions is ‘below’ average (↓).
The results suggest that the UK has performed comparatively strongly in terms of its share of projects for most types of instruments, being involved in almost all of the Networks of Excellence and Integrated Projects which were typically very large actions involving partners from many countries. For most of the remaining instruments the UK was involved in between half and three-quarters of all the funded projects, meaning that the UK’s exposure to the activities and results achieved by FP6 was very significant. In fact, there were only two types of instrument where the UK’s involvement rate was below 50% (Marie Curie Actions and Specific Support Actions), both of which typically involve relatively few countries in each project. The ability of any one country to have a high project involvement rate in these instruments is rather low.
The UK’s share of the participations and funding associated with each type of instrument is a better indicator of performance, and here we see more variability in the results. The main areas of strong performance were in terms of participations were the Marie Curie Actions, Co-operative research projects and Networks of Excellence, while in terms of funding share the UK has performed best in the Integrated Infrastructure Initiatives, Marie Curie Actions and Co-operative Research Projects. The UK’s relative involvement in Specific Support Actions was rather low across all of the indicators (share of projects, participations and funding).
Figure 63 – UK projects, participations and EC funding, expressed as a share of FP6 totals, by Type of Instrument
Instrument Project share Participation share EC funding share
Networks of Excellence (NoEs) 98%↑ 13.1%↑ 14.6%↔
Integrated Projects (IPs) 83%↑ 11.5%↔ 13.2%↔
Specific Targeted Research Projects (STREPs) 60%↑ 10.9%↔ 12.4%↓
Coordination Actions (CAs) 72%↑ 9.9%↓ 11.3%↓
Specific Support Actions (SSAs) 31%↓ 7.2%↓ 8.7%↓
Co-operative Research Projects (CRAFT) 61%↑ 15.7%↑ 18.0%↑
Collective Research Projects (CLR) 66%↑ 11.0%↔ 17.3%↑
Integrated Infrastructure Initiatives (I3) 73%↑ 7.4%↓ 48.2%↑
Specific Actions to Promote Research Infrastructures (II) 54%↑ 10.3%↓ 10.6%↓
Marie Curie Actions (MCAs) 30%↓ 19.2%↑ 22.8%↑
Total 45.3% 11.8% 14.2%
Source: FP6 participation data (E-CORDA, 1st November 2009)
There has been a high degree of interest in the new FP6 instruments – NoEs and IPs, and in particular the suitability of these instruments for different groups of actors. Figure 64 shows the profile of involvement of each of the four main groups of participants in each of these two instruments, overall for FP6 and then for the UK only.
The data reveal that overall the participants in NoEs are mainly HEIs and research institutes (56% and 29% of the participations respectively). The profile of UK involvement in NoEs shows that most of its involvement has been through the HEI (79%) sector or research institutes (14%), with the remaining participation in NoEs split more evenly between the other two types of organisation. The UK pattern here is therefore fairly typical of the participation profile as a whole except for the fact that the UK has higher involvement by HEIs and lower involvement by Research Institutes.
The Figure also shows that across FP6 as a whole, the IPs involve all of the four main participant groups, broadly in proportion, although HEIs pick up a slightly higher share of the participations (31%), and the ‘other’ category picks up a lower share (15%). Looking at UK involvement in IPs, again the HEIs pick up the largest share, and to a greater extent than was the case overall. The industry’s share of participation has remained stable, around 30%, overall and in the case of the UK. Figure 64 – Profile of involvement in NoEs and IPs, split by organisation type for all FP6 participants and UK only
Instrument HES IND REC OTH Total
NoEs – all FP6 participations 56% 8% 29% 7% 100%
NoEs – UK only 79% 7% 14% 6% 100%
IPs – all FP6 participations 31% 27% 26% 15% 100%
IPs – UK only 55% 30% 15% 15% 100%
Source: FP6 participation data (E-CORDA, 1st November 2009)
B.8. Nature of FP6 participation
Participants in the Framework Programmes can occupy the role of project coordinator or are otherwise listed simply as one of the participants. Analysis of the UK’s FP6 participations reveals
that the UK partner occupied the role of project coordinator in 1,73634 cases, or 38% of the projects in
which UK participants were involved. This means that the UK participants were in a coordinating role for 20% of all UK FP6 participations, substantially above the FP6 average of 14%.
The total number of projects (with UK involvement and overall) and the total number of projects with UK coordinators is shown in Figure 19 for FP4, FP5 and FP6. Of all projects, the share with a UK coordinator fell from 23.1% in FP4 to 18% in FP5 and then to 17.3% in FP6. As a proportion of just those projects with some UK involvement, a UK coordinator held the position of coordinator in 49% of cases in FP4, 44.1% of cases in FP5 and 38.1% in FP6.
Figure 65 – UK’s participation in FP4, FP5 and FP6 - coordinators
Indicator FP4 FP5 FP635
All projects 15,457 16,251 10,058
Projects with UK partners 7,276 6,613 4,559
Projects with UK coordinators 3,566 2,917 1,736
Share of all projects with a UK coordinator 23.07% 17.95% 17.26%
Share of UK projects with a UK coordinator 49.01% 44.11% 38.08%
Source: ‘The Impact of the EU Framework Programmes in the UK (Technopolis, July 2004; E-CORDA, 1st November 2009)
Patterns of UK coordination by FP6 Priority Area have been analysed, and are shown in Figure 66. It reveals higher than average coordination rates for the UK in the majority of the Priority Areas, particularly in the Support for international cooperation and Development of R&I policies, where UK coordinator to participation ratios were nearly double the overall FP6 rate. There were no areas of (relatively) low UK coordinator ratios, however in most of the thematic priority areas in Block 1 of the programme UK coordination rates were similar to the FP6 pattern overall.
Figure 66 – UK coordination levels by FP6 Priority Area
Priority UK coordinators participant ratio Coordinator to (UK)
Coordinator to participant ratio
(FP6 overall)
1. Life sciences, genomics and biotechnology 78 9%↔ 9%
2. Information society technologies 106 7%↔ 8%
3. Nanotechnologies and nanosciences 47 8%↔ 8%
4. Aeronautics and space 25 6%↔ 7%
5. Food quality and safety 26 7%↔ 6%
6. Sustainable development 63 6%↔ 6%
7. Citizens and governance 21 9%↑ 7%
Policy support / S&T needs 79 13%↑ 11%
Horizontal research activities - SMEs 104 14%↑ 9%
Support for international cooperation 35 24%↑ 14%
Research and innovation 25 19%↑ 13%
Human resources and mobility 1,062 68%↑ 54%
Research infrastructures 22 12%↑ 8%
Science and society 17 16%↔ 16%
34 Participant’s role was not specified in 4 cases
Priority UK coordinators participant ratio Coordinator to (UK)
Coordinator to participant ratio
(FP6 overall)
Support for the coordination of activities 15 18%↑ 8%
Development of R & I policies 2 20%↑ 11%
Euratom 9 7%↔ 7%
Total36 1,736 20%↑ 14%
Source: FP6 participation data (E-CORDA, 1st November 2009)
The likelihood of being a project coordinator varies significantly depending on the type of instrument in which organisations are involved. For example, the NoEs have an average of 30 partners and it is therefore relatively difficult to occupy a high share of coordinator roles within this type of instrument. However, Marie Curie actions have an average of only two partners, so we would expect to identify a high share of coordinator roles for this instrument.
Figure 67 presents the number of UK coordinators for each type of instrument and the ratio of UK coordinators to participants. The average FP6 coordinator to participant ratio for each type of instrument is also shown for comparison. Arrows (↑↔↓) have again been used to symbolise whether UK’s coordination levels for each type of instrument are above, below, or in line with the overall picture. The data indicate that UK partners have occupied the role of coordinator to a higher degree than the overall FP6 average for most types of instrument, particularly Collective research projects and Integrated infrastructure initiatives.
Figure 67 – UK coordination levels by type of Instrument
Instrument UK coordinators Coordinator to participant ratio (UK) Coordinator to participant ratio (FP6 overall)
Networks of Excellence (NoEs) 23 3%↔ 3%
Integrated Projects (IPs) 90 4%↔ 4%
Specific Targeted Research Projects (STREPs) 280 12%↔ 11%
Coordination Actions (CAs) 69 10↑ 7%
Specific Support Actions (SSAs) 100 17%↔ 17%
Co-operative Research Projects (CRAFT) 85 15%↑ 11%
Collective Research Projects (CLR) 17 9%↑ 5%
Integrated Infrastructure Initiatives (I3) 2 8%↑ 3%
Specific Actions to Promote Research Infrastructures
(II) 12 13%↑ 9%
Marie Curie Actions (MCAs) 1,058 67%↑ 55%
Total37 1,736 20%↑ 14%
Source: FP6 participation data (E-CORDA, 1st November 2009)
Analysis of the organisation (activity) type of the UK coordinators revealed that HEIs and research institutes were most likely to fulfil the role of coordinator, occupying the position of coordinator in 33% and 29% of participations respectively. Industry participants were coordinators in 7% of their participations, while for ‘other’ organisations the figure was 12%.
36 Participant’s role was not specified in 4 cases 37 Participant’s role was not specified in 4 cases