In response to the first pilot common call within the ERA-Net CRUE, 15 proposals for transnational research projects were submitted with a requested funding volume of 3.8 million Euros. Each proposal was evaluated by a minimum of three scientific reviewers nominated by the countries involved as funding institutions. The evaluation was based on 10 specific criteria which are listed in the call text, section A.4. For each of the criteria, a maximum of 5 points were awarded by the reviewers. Subsequently, the proposals were assorted in a ranking list according to the total scores of the scientific evaluation.
The second criterion leading to a funding decision was the proposed funding institutions’ own assessments. (“Own assessment” means the consideration of national/regional preferences such as policy needs, national thematic focal points or existing research activities and results).
For this purpose, the proposals were attributed to one of three categories A, B, C by the respective funding institutions (A= funding, B= unsure about funding, C= no funding).
The results of the scientific evaluation and the attributions to the categories were discussed for each of the proposals at a meeting of the WP6 Steering Group (comprised of representatives from all participating funding institutions) on 15/16 May 2006 in Dresden. As there were restrictions on the national budgets, this was also a criterion for the selection of proposals. In several cases, partners offered “cross-funding” (one country funds a research project partner from another country) to enable the realisation of joint research projects approved by quality criteria.
Finally, seven collaborative projects were selected as candidates for funding with an accumulated funding total of 1.6 million Euros.
Project partners (will have) had to establish and sign a consortium agreement as a prerequisite for funding. In particular, IPR (will have) had to be considered. In the first place, this (is) was a task for the coordinator of the research project. In addition, the help of the involved funding organisations (may be) was needed in some cases to make the consortium agreement compatible with the funding rules.
(Once the collaborative projects have started,) Payment (will be) is made according to respective national funding rules; usually, the final report must be accepted to release the final payment.
Monitoring and communication of results
During the first additional workshop organised for WP6 (Berlin, September 05), it was decided that the collaborative projects' coordinators should submit project progress reports to a CRUE WP6 programme steering committee. Apart from that, reporting will be done nationally since funding is national. (Further monitoring instruments, for example, status seminars after a project duration of one year, are not excluded. It was stressed that) As a further monitoring instrument, a mid-term seminar will be held in Lyon in October, 2007, since a common and coherent communication and evaluation of this first pilot call's results is important for effective dissemination.