Capacities Programme: Research for the benefit of SMEs Research for SMEs Full example project proposal; ‘Edible Food Packaging’ – EDIPAC (2010) Produced by Beta Technology for the TransCoSME project
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Capacities Programme:Research for thebenefit of SMEsResearch for SMEs
Full example project proposal;‘Edible Food Packaging’ – EDIPAC (2010)
Produced by Beta Technology for the TransCoSME project
page 2
ContentsThis document includes:
Contents
Introduction
The example project proposal – EDIPAC (a fictional application) containing
• Part A – financial data
• Part B – project narrative; including hints and tips on the content
o Ethical issues
o Consideration of Gender Aspects
o List of References and Related Projects
Check list
Additional Information and support / Glossary
EDIPAC - In addition to the contribution from the members of the TransCoSME consortium,contributions were also gratefully received from Technofi (France)
Please note that this is only an exemplar proposal that has been written as a reference documentto help SME’s format their own submissions; it is not a real bid. The content is entirely fictionaland thus it is not possible to judge the realism of the imaginary goals, or the viability of theconcept, but to allow realistic evaluation, key assumptions have been made around aspects suchas the nature of the polymer, and risk of contamination etc. No part of the proposal should be cutand pasted into any other document.
Produced by Beta Technology for the TransCoSME project
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
Introduction
page1
IntroductionThis example proposal is produced as part of the TransCoSME project;TransCoSME is part-funded by the European Commission under theCapacities theme 'Research for the benefit of SMEs', and aims to increase thenumber and quality of projects containing and/or impacting on EuropeanSMEs. By supporting innovative SME’s, there will be a knock-on effect in theimprovement to the wider EU economy.
The funding scheme, “Research for the benefit of specific groups (in particularSMEs)”, will support research and technological development projects acrossthe entire field of science and technology, where the bulk of the research iscarried out by RTD performers for the benefit of specific groups, in particularlow and medium technology Small and Medium sized Enterprises (SME’s), butincluding research intensive SMEs to complement their core capability.
This fictitious project proposal – EDIPAC – incorporates many features that areal structured, designed, and formal project application would contain. Theadditional advice notes ( ) provided in the document are intended to furthersupport and clarify the actual proposal text at certain relevant points, to helpapplicants when developing their own proposal.
Please note:
Due to the extra explanations and illustrations, and in some cases theaddition of duplicate tables for clarification, this means that the examplebid exceeds the maximum permitted specified length. ALL APPLICANTSMUST KEEP TO THE MAXIMUM LENGTH FOR THEIR ACTUALPROPOSAL and use the format as specified in the official guide issuedwith the all information related to the call for proposals, which can bedownloaded from the following web-site:http://www.cordis.europa.eu/fp7/calls
NO MATERIALS SHOULD BE ‘CUT AND PASTED’ INTO OTHERDOCUMENTS – to ensure the innovative nature of the project isdemonstrated to the evaluators.
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
Introduction
page2
NOT ALL SME’s WILL HAVE THE CAPACITY TO PARTICIPATE – thescheme is designed to assist companies in acquiring technologicalknow-how and accessing international networks for their medium tolong term business development. In this context, the real investmentor cost incurred by the SME includes the price they pay for the know-how they wish to acquire and the intellectual property rights andknowledge developed during the project. Even if the level of publicfunding provided is substantial, it will never cover all the costs, someelement will have to be covered by the SMEs themselves.
page 3
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Research for thebenefit of SMEsResearch for SMEs
7th Framework Programme onResearch, TechnologicalDevelopment and Demonstration
Proposal Submission
A1Proposal Number Proposal Acronym EDIPAC
GENERAL INFORMATION
Proposal Title EDIBLE FOOD PACKAGING
Duration in months 24 Call (part) identifier FP7-SME-2010-1
Sector code(s) mostrelevant to your topic
9-Environment/Waste 10-Food, Free keywords(industrial application)
Free keywords (S& T) Edible, protective, low cost, non-toxic, Packaging, Food, reliability, functionality
Abstract (max. 2000 char.)
Packaging of food is vital to its transport, protection and display. The pack carries information andinstruction; however, the packaging costs experienced by the manufacturer are a significant elementof the final product cost. As food prices are rising across the world, the drive to reduce costs andremain competitive is stronger than ever. The cost of the package is passed to the consumer whousually finds the product inaccessible due to the pack and the package disposal wasteful. Disposaland recycling problems are experienced and for some packaging materials these are problematic andexpensive, both in terms of the product costs and in terms of recycling or disposal. New directives areconstantly being introduced to limit the use of non-biodegradable packaging and food manufacturersand retailers are focusing on packaging to reduce their carbon footprint.There is a strong need for a low cost packaging concept that will satisfy the essential marketing andprotection requirements, yet has negligible disposal problems. Thus the proposal is strongly sectordriven. However, whatever advantages the packaging has in terms of reliability, functionality and easybiodegradation there will be no impact unless the novel packaging is accepted by the consumer.
So the main aim of this project (EDIPAC) is to develop a packaging material for foods with thefollowing properties:
-Edible (no waste)
-Protective thus increasing storage time
-Low cost
-Accepted by consumers with demonstrable advantages to the environment
The new non-toxic coating material, Fantasylene, was initially developed for the inert encapsulation ofdrugs, has proved unreliable for that application because it intermittently mimics the taste, texture andaroma of the encapsulated drug. However, the material has been shown to be meta-stable, being aninsulator in the alpha-phase and conductive in the beta –phase. An opportunity has been recognisedto exploit this behaviour and use a stable beta Fantasylene as an edible packaging material to becoated directly onto several trail foods to form a completely edible packaging.
Similar proposals or signed contracts?
a) Has this proposal (or a very similar one) been previously submitted to acall for proposals of the 7th EU RTD Framework Programme?
NO
b) Is this proposal (or a very similar one) currently being submitted toanother call under FP7?
NO
page 4
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Research for thebenefit of SMEsResearch for SMEs
7th Framework Programme onResearch, TechnologicalDevelopment and Demonstration
Proposal Submission
A2.1Proposal Number Proposal Acronym EDIPAC Participant number 1
Status of your organisation
INFORMATION ON PARTICIPANTS (ONE FORM PER PARTICIPANT)
If your organisation has already registered for FP7, enter your Participant IdentityCode
Organisation legal name Passive Food Films Manufacturing
Type of participant: SME Manufacturer (= SME)
Basic administrative data
Legal address
Street name Example Street Number 10
Town London
Postal Code / Cedex EC3A
Country United Kingdom
Internet homepage (optional) www.pffm.com
Certain types of organisations benefit from special conditions under the FP7 participation rules. TheCommission also collects data for statistical purposes.The guidance notes will help you complete this section.
Please ‘tick’ the relevant box(es) if your organisation falls into one or more of the followingcategories.
1/ Public body YES □ NO ⌧2/ Non profit organisation YES □ NO ⌧
Certain types of organisations benefit from special conditions under the FP7 participation rules. TheCommission also collects data for statistical purposes.The guidance notes will help you complete this section.
Please ‘tick’ the relevant box(es) if your organisation falls into one or more of the followingcategories.
1/ Public body YES □ NO ⌧2/ Non profit organisation YES □ NO ⌧
Please select the type of activity of your organisation: HE / RES / IND / SERV / OTHActivity type (NACE code): 7482 - Packaging activities
page 5
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Research for thebenefit of SMEsResearch for SMEs
7th Framework Programme onResearch, TechnologicalDevelopment and Demonstration
Proposal Submission
A2.1Do you carry out some form of economic activity (and are therefore regarded as an enterprise’)
YES
IF YES:
Based on the figures above, do you meet the following additional criteria:
1/ You have less than 250 Employees?
2/ Your turnover is less than 50 mill euro or your annual balance sheet total is less than 43 mill euro?
3/ You are autonomous, and if not after having taken into account the data of your partner and/or linkedenterprises, you are still in conformity with questions 1 and 2 above?
Following this can you confirm that you are an SME according to the Recommendation
2003/361/EC in the version of 6th May 2003:
YES / NO
If you are an SME-AG, please provide the following information:
Total data of your enterprise:
Staff headcount 35 Annual turnover 10 mill € Annual balance sheet 5 mill €
How many EU Member States or Associated Countries are represented in yourassociation/grouping?
/
Percentage of SMEmembers
/ Percentage of otherenterprises members
/ Percentage of otherSME-AG members
/
Number of SMEmembers
/ Number of otherenterprise members
/ Number of other SME-AG members
/
page 6
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Research for thebenefit of SMEsResearch for SMEs
7th Framework Programme onResearch, TechnologicalDevelopment and Demonstration
Proposal Submission
A2.2Proposal Number Proposal Acronym EDIPAC Participant number 1
INFORMATION ON PARTICIPANTS (ONE FORM PER PARTICIPANT)
Organisation short name PFFM
Dependencies with (an)other participant(s)
Are there dependencies between your organisation and (an)other participant(s) inthis proposal? (Yes or No)
NO
If Yes:
Participant Number Organisation Short Name Character ofdependence
Participant Number Organisation Short Name Character ofdependence
Participant Number Organisation Short Name Character ofdependence
Contact points
Person in charge (For the co-ordinator (participant number 1) this person is the one who theCommission will contact in the first instance)
Family name Bigg First name(s) John
Title Dr. Sex (Female – F / Male – M) M
Position in the organisation Managing Director
Department/Faculty/Institute/Laboratory name/ …
Address (if different from the legal address)
Street name Number
Town
Postal Code / Cedex
Country
Phone 1 +34 852 963 Phone 2 +34 852 741
E-mail [email protected] Fax +34 852 456
page 7
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Research for thebenefit of SMEsResearch for SMEs
7th Framework Programme onResearch, TechnologicalDevelopment and Demonstration
Proposal Submission
A2.1Proposal Number Proposal Acronym EDIPAC Participant number 2
Status of your organisation
INFORMATION ON PARTICIPANTS (ONE FORM PER PARTICIPANT)
If your organisation has already registered for FP7, enter your Participant IdentityCode
Organisation legal name Tasty Testers
Type of participant: SME (= SME)
Basic administrative data
Legal address
Street name Via Delle Cinque Fontane Number 118
Town Roma
Postal Code / Cedex 00183 Roma (RM)
Country Italy
Internet homepage (optional) www.tastytesters.it
Certain types of organisations benefit from special conditions under the FP7 participation rules. TheCommission also collects data for statistical purposes.The guidance notes will help you complete this section.
Please ‘tick’ the relevant box(es) if your organisation falls into one or more of the followingcategories.
1/ Public body YES □ NO ⌧2/ Non profit organisation YES □ NO ⌧
Please select the type of activity of your organisation: HE / RES / IND / SERV / OTHActivity type (NACE code): 913 Activities of other membership organizations
page 8
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Research for thebenefit of SMEsResearch for SMEs
7th Framework Programme onResearch, TechnologicalDevelopment and Demonstration
Proposal Submission
A2.1Do you carry out some form of economic activity (and are therefore regarded as an enterprise’)
YES
IF YES:
Based on the figures above, do you meet the following additional criteria:
1/ You have less than 250 Employees?
2/ Your turnover is less than 50 mill euro or your annual balance sheet total is less than 43 mill euro?
3/ You are autonomous, and if not after having taken into account the data of your partner and/or linkedenterprises, you are still in conformity with questions 1 and 2 above?
Following this can you confirm that you are an SME according to the Recommendation
2003/361/EC in the version of 6th May 2003:
YES / NO
If you are an SME-AG, please provide the following information:
Total data of your enterprise:
Staff headcount 135 Annual turnover 38 mill € Annual balance sheet 20 mill €
How many EU Member States or Associated Countries are represented in yourassociation/grouping?
/
Percentage of SMEmembers
/ Percentage of otherenterprises members
/ Percentage of otherSME-AG members
/
Number of SMEmembers
/ Number of otherenterprise members
/ Number of other SME-AG members
/
page 9
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Research for thebenefit of SMEsResearch for SMEs
7th Framework Programme onResearch, TechnologicalDevelopment and Demonstration
Proposal Submission
A2.2Proposal Number Proposal Acronym EDIPAC Participant number 2
INFORMATION ON PARTICIPANTS (ONE FORM PER PARTICIPANT)
Organisation short name TT
Dependencies with (an)other participant(s)
Are there dependencies between your organisation and (an)other participant(s) inthis proposal? (Yes or No)
NO
If Yes:
Participant Number Organisation Short Name Character ofdependence
Participant Number Organisation Short Name Character ofdependence
Participant Number Organisation Short Name Character ofdependence
Contact points
Person in charge (For the co-ordinator (participant number 1) this person is the one who theCommission will contact in the first instance)
Family name Ferrero First name(s) Maria
Title Dr. Sex (Female – F / Male – M) F
Position in the organisation Director
Department/Faculty/Institute/Laboratory name/ …
Address (if different from the legal address)
Street name Number
Town
Postal Code / Cedex
Country
Phone 1 +39 0642133 Phone 2 +39 0642134
E-mail [email protected] Fax +39 0642135
page 10
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Research for thebenefit of SMEsResearch for SMEs
7th Framework Programme onResearch, TechnologicalDevelopment and Demonstration
Proposal Submission
A2.1Proposal Number Proposal Acronym EDIPAC Participant number 3
Status of your organisation
INFORMATION ON PARTICIPANTS (ONE FORM PER PARTICIPANT)
If your organisation has already registered for FP7, enter your Participant IdentityCode
Organisation legal name Euro Opi
Type of participant: SME (= SME)
Basic administrative data
Legal address
Street name Musterstrasse Number 10
Town Berlin
Postal Code / Cedex 12345
Country Germany
Internet homepage (optional) www.euro-opi.org
Certain types of organisations benefit from special conditions under the FP7 participation rules. TheCommission also collects data for statistical purposes.The guidance notes will help you complete this section.
Please ‘tick’ the relevant box(es) if your organisation falls into one or more of the followingcategories.
1/ Public body YES □ NO ⌧2/ Non profit organisation YES □ NO ⌧
Please select the type of activity of your organisation: HE / RES / IND / SERV / OTHActivity type (NACE code): 913 Activities of other membership organizations
page 11
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Research for thebenefit of SMEsResearch for SMEs
7th Framework Programme onResearch, TechnologicalDevelopment and Demonstration
Proposal Submission
A2.1Do you carry out some form of economic activity (and are therefore regarded as an enterprise’)
YES
IF YES:
Based on the figures above, do you meet the following additional criteria:
1/ You have less than 250 Employees?
2/ Your turnover is less than 50 mill euro or your annual balance sheet total is less than 43 mill euro?
3/ You are autonomous, and if not after having taken into account the data of your partner and/or linkedenterprises, you are still in conformity with questions 1 and 2 above?
Following this can you confirm that you are an SME according to the Recommendation
2003/361/EC in the version of 6th May 2003:
YES / NO
If you are an SME-AG, please provide the following information:
Total data of your enterprise:
Staff headcount 31 Annual turnover 27m Annual balance sheet 14m
How many EU Member States or Associated Countries are represented in yourassociation/grouping?
/
Percentage of SMEmembers
/ Percentage of otherenterprises members
/ Percentage of otherSME-AG members
/
Number of SMEmembers
/ Number of otherenterprise members
/ Number of other SME-AG members
/
page 12
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Research for thebenefit of SMEsResearch for SMEs
7th Framework Programme onResearch, TechnologicalDevelopment and Demonstration
Proposal Submission
A2.2Proposal Number Proposal Acronym EDIPAC Participant number 3
INFORMATION ON PARTICIPANTS (ONE FORM PER PARTICIPANT)
Organisation short name EuOP
Dependencies with (an)other participant(s)
Are there dependencies between your organisation and (an)other participant(s) inthis proposal? (Yes or No)
NO
If Yes:
Participant Number Organisation Short Name Character ofdependence
Participant Number Organisation Short Name Character ofdependence
Participant Number Organisation Short Name Character ofdependence
Contact points
Person in charge (For the co-ordinator (participant number 1) this person is the one who theCommission will contact in the first instance)
Family name Mustermann First name(s) Erika
Title Prof. Dr. Sex (Female – F / Male– M)
F
Position in the organisation Head of Unit
Department/Faculty/Institute/Laboratory name/ …
Technologies & Innovation Management
Address (if different from the legal address)
Street name Number
Town
Postal Code / Cedex
Country
Phone 1 +49 852 963 Phone 2 +49 852 741
E-mail [email protected] Fax +49 852 456
page 13
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Research for thebenefit of SMEsResearch for SMEs
7th Framework Programme onResearch, TechnologicalDevelopment and Demonstration
Proposal Submission
A2.1Proposal Number Proposal Acronym EDIPAC Participant number 4
Status of your organisation
INFORMATION ON PARTICIPANTS (ONE FORM PER PARTICIPANT)
If your organisation has already registered for FP7, enter your Participant IdentityCode
Organisation legal name Les Vergers
Type of participant: SME
Basic administrative data
Legal address
Street name Rue des vergers Number 2
Town Bordeaux
Postal Code / Cedex 33123
Country France
Internet homepage (optional) www.lesvergers.fr
Certain types of organisations benefit from special conditions under the FP7 participation rules. TheCommission also collects data for statistical purposes.The guidance notes will help you complete this section.
Please ‘tick’ the relevant box(es) if your organisation falls into one or more of the followingcategories.
1/ Public body YES □ NO ⌧2/ Non profit organisation YES □ NO ⌧
Please select the type of activity of your organisation: HE / RES / IND / SERV / OTHActivity type (NACE code): 5131 - Wholesale of fruit and vegetables
page 14
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Research for thebenefit of SMEsResearch for SMEs
7th Framework Programme onResearch, TechnologicalDevelopment and Demonstration
Proposal Submission
A2.1Do you carry out some form of economic activity (and are therefore regarded as an enterprise’)
YES
IF YES:
Based on the figures above, do you meet the following additional criteria:
1/ You have less than 250 Employees?
2/ Your turnover is less than 50 mill euro or your annual balance sheet total is less than 43 mill euro?
3/ You are autonomous, and if not after having taken into account the data of your partner and/or linkedenterprises, you are still in conformity with questions 1 and 2 above?
Following this can you confirm that you are an SME according to the Recommendation
2003/361/EC in the version of 6th May 2003:
YES / NO
If you are an SME-AG, please provide the following information:
Total data of your enterprise:
Staff headcount 35 Annual turnover 12 mill € Annual balance sheet 4 mill €
How many EU Member States or Associated Countries are represented in yourassociation/grouping?
/
Percentage of SMEmembers
/ Percentage of otherenterprises members
/ Percentage of otherSME-AG members
/
Number of SMEmembers
/ Number of otherenterprise members
/ Number of other SME-AG members
/
page 15
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Research for thebenefit of SMEsResearch for SMEs
7th Framework Programme onResearch, TechnologicalDevelopment and Demonstration
Proposal Submission
A2.2Proposal Number Proposal Acronym EDIPAC Participant number 4
INFORMATION ON PARTICIPANTS (ONE FORM PER PARTICIPANT)
Organisation short name EuOP
Dependencies with (an)other participant(s)
Are there dependencies between your organisation and (an)other participant(s) inthis proposal? (Yes or No)
NO
If Yes:
Participant Number Organisation Short Name Character ofdependence
Participant Number Organisation Short Name Character ofdependence
Participant Number Organisation Short Name Character ofdependence
Contact points
Person in charge (For the co-ordinator (participant number 1) this person is the one who theCommission will contact in the first instance)
Family name Martin First name(s) Michel
Title Sex (Female – F /Male – M)
M
Position in the organisation Director
Department/Faculty/Institute/Laboratory name/ …
Address (if different from the legal address)
Street name Number
Town
Postal Code / Cedex
Country
Phone 1 +33 1 85 29 63 70 Phone 2
E-mail [email protected] Fax +33 1 85 29 63 71
page 16
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Research for thebenefit of SMEsResearch for SMEs
7th Framework Programme onResearch, TechnologicalDevelopment and Demonstration
Proposal Submission
A2.1Proposal Number Proposal Acronym EDIPAC Participant number 5
Status of your organisation
INFORMATION ON PARTICIPANTS (ONE FORM PER PARTICIPANT)
If your organisation has already registered for FP7, enter your Participant IdentityCode
Organisation legal name PisciCatch
Type of participant: SME
Basic administrative data
Legal address
Street name Av. Infante Dom Henrique Number 25
Town Lisboa
Postal Code / Cedex 12345
Country Portugal
Internet homepage (optional) www.piscicatch.pt
Certain types of organisations benefit from special conditions under the FP7 participation rules. TheCommission also collects data for statistical purposes.The guidance notes will help you complete this section.
Please ‘tick’ the relevant box(es) if your organisation falls into one or more of the followingcategories.
1/ Public body YES □ NO ⌧2/ Non profit organisation YES □ NO ⌧
Please select the type of activity of your organisation: HE / RES / IND / SERV / OTHActivity type (NACE code): 5223 - Retail sale of fish, crustaceans and molluscs
page 17
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Research for thebenefit of SMEsResearch for SMEs
7th Framework Programme onResearch, TechnologicalDevelopment and Demonstration
Proposal Submission
A2.1Do you carry out some form of economic activity (and are therefore regarded as an enterprise’)
YES
IF YES:
Based on the figures above, do you meet the following additional criteria:
1/ You have less than 250 Employees?
2/ Your turnover is less than 50 mill euro or your annual balance sheet total is less than 43 mill euro?
3/ You are autonomous, and if not after having taken into account the data of your partner and/or linkedenterprises, you are still in conformity with questions 1 and 2 above?
Following this can you confirm that you are an SME according to the Recommendation
2003/361/EC in the version of 6th May 2003:
YES / NO
If you are an SME-AG, please provide the following information:
Total data of your enterprise:
Staff headcount 87 Annual turnover 30 mill € Annual balance sheet 25 mill €
How many EU Member States or Associated Countries are represented in yourassociation/grouping?
/
Percentage of SMEmembers
/ Percentage of otherenterprises members
/ Percentage of otherSME-AG members
/
Number of SMEmembers
/ Number of otherenterprise members
/ Number of other SME-AG members
/
page 18
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Research for thebenefit of SMEsResearch for SMEs
7th Framework Programme onResearch, TechnologicalDevelopment and Demonstration
Proposal Submission
A2.2Proposal Number Proposal Acronym EDIPAC Participant number 5
INFORMATION ON PARTICIPANTS (ONE FORM PER PARTICIPANT)
Organisation short name PisC
Dependencies with (an)other participant(s)
Are there dependencies between your organisation and (an)other participant(s) inthis proposal? (Yes or No)
NO
If Yes:
Participant Number Organisation Short Name Character ofdependence
Participant Number Organisation Short Name Character ofdependence
Participant Number Organisation Short Name Character ofdependence
Contact points
Person in charge (For the co-ordinator (participant number 1) this person is the one who theCommission will contact in the first instance)
Family name Ramos First name(s) Celso
Title Sex (Female – F /Male – M)
M
Position in the organisation Director
Department/Faculty/Institute/Laboratory name/ …
Address (if different from the legal address)
Street name Number
Town
Postal Code / Cedex
Country
Phone 1 +351 210 312 Phone 2
E-mail [email protected] Fax +351 210 312
page 19
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Research for thebenefit of SMEsResearch for SMEs
7th Framework Programme onResearch, TechnologicalDevelopment and Demonstration
Proposal Submission
A2.1Proposal Number Proposal Acronym EDIPAC Participant number 6
Status of your organisation
INFORMATION ON PARTICIPANTS (ONE FORM PER PARTICIPANT)
If your organisation has already registered for FP7, enter your Participant IdentityCode
Organisation legal name Inno-Retail
Type of participant: SME
Basic administrative data
Legal address
Street name Primaciálne nám. Number 2
Town Bratislava
Postal Code / Cedex 814 99
Country Slovakia
Internet homepage (optional) www.innoretail.sk
Certain types of organisations benefit from special conditions under the FP7 participation rules. TheCommission also collects data for statistical purposes.The guidance notes will help you complete this section.
Please ‘tick’ the relevant box(es) if your organisation falls into one or more of the followingcategories.
1/ Public body YES □ NO ⌧2/ Non profit organisation YES □ NO ⌧
Please select the type of activity of your organisation: HE / RES / IND / SERV / OTHActivity type (NACE code): 522 Retail sale of food
page 20
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Research for thebenefit of SMEsResearch for SMEs
7th Framework Programme onResearch, TechnologicalDevelopment and Demonstration
Proposal Submission
A2.1Do you carry out some form of economic activity (and are therefore regarded as an enterprise’)
YES
IF YES:
Based on the figures above, do you meet the following additional criteria:
1/ You have less than 250 Employees?
2/ Your turnover is less than 50 mill euro or your annual balance sheet total is less than 43 mill euro?
3/ You are autonomous, and if not after having taken into account the data of your partner and/or linkedenterprises, you are still in conformity with questions 1 and 2 above?
Following this can you confirm that you are an SME according to the Recommendation
2003/361/EC in the version of 6th May 2003:
YES / NO
If you are an SME-AG, please provide the following information:
Total data of your enterprise:
Staff headcount 52 Annual turnover 40 mill € Annual balance sheet 16 mill €
How many EU Member States or Associated Countries are represented in yourassociation/grouping?
/
Percentage of SMEmembers
/ Percentage of otherenterprises members
/ Percentage of otherSME-AG members
/
Number of SMEmembers
/ Number of otherenterprise members
/ Number of other SME-AG members
/
page 21
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Research for thebenefit of SMEsResearch for SMEs
7th Framework Programme onResearch, TechnologicalDevelopment and Demonstration
Proposal Submission
A2.2Proposal Number Proposal Acronym EDIPAC Participant number 6
INFORMATION ON PARTICIPANTS (ONE FORM PER PARTICIPANT)
Organisation short name Inn-R
Dependencies with (an)other participant(s)
Are there dependencies between your organisation and (an)other participant(s) inthis proposal? (Yes or No)
NO
If Yes:
Participant Number Organisation Short Name Character ofdependence
Participant Number Organisation Short Name Character ofdependence
Participant Number Organisation Short Name Character ofdependence
Contact points
Person in charge (For the co-ordinator (participant number 1) this person is the one who theCommission will contact in the first instance)
Family name Pavlovičová First name(s) Anna
Title Sex (Female – F /Male – M)
F
Position in the organisation Director
Department/Faculty/Institute/Laboratory name/ …
Address (if different from the legal address)
Street name Number
Town
Postal Code / Cedex
Country
Phone 1 + 421 2 593 123 66 Phone 2
E-mail [email protected] Fax +421259312367
page 22
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Research for thebenefit of SMEsResearch for SMEs
7th Framework Programme onResearch, TechnologicalDevelopment and Demonstration
Proposal Submission
A2.1Proposal Number Proposal Acronym EDIPAC Participant number 7
Status of your organisation
INFORMATION ON PARTICIPANTS (ONE FORM PER PARTICIPANT)
If your organisation has already registered for FP7, enter your Participant IdentityCode
Organisation legal name National University of the Netherlands
Type of participant: RTD Performer
Basic administrative data
Legal address
Street name Binnengasthuisstraat Number 9
Town Amsterdam
Postal Code / Cedex 1012 ZA
Country The Netherlands
Internet homepage (optional) www.nun.nl
Certain types of organisations benefit from special conditions under the FP7 participation rules. TheCommission also collects data for statistical purposes.The guidance notes will help you complete this section.
Please ‘tick’ the relevant box(es) if your organisation falls into one or more of the followingcategories.
1/ Public body YES □ NO ⌧2/ Non profit organisation YES □ NO ⌧
Please select the type of activity of your organisation: HE / RES / IND / SERV / OTHActivity type (NACE code): 7310 - Research and experimental development on natural sciencesand engineering
page 23
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Research for thebenefit of SMEsResearch for SMEs
7th Framework Programme onResearch, TechnologicalDevelopment and Demonstration
Proposal Submission
A2.1Do you carry out some form of economic activity (and are therefore regarded as an enterprise’)
NO
IF YES:
Based on the figures above, do you meet the following additional criteria:
1/ You have less than 250 Employees?
2/ Your turnover is less than 50 mill euro or your annual balance sheet total is less than 43 mill euro?
3/ You are autonomous, and if not after having taken into account the data of your partner and/or linkedenterprises, you are still in conformity with questions 1 and 2 above?
Following this can you confirm that you are an SME according to the Recommendation
2003/361/EC in the version of 6th May 2003:
YES / NO
If you are an SME-AG, please provide the following information:
Total data of your enterprise:
Staff headcount Annual turnover Annual balance sheet
How many EU Member States or Associated Countries are represented in yourassociation/grouping?
/
Percentage of SMEmembers
/ Percentage of otherenterprises members
/ Percentage of otherSME-AG members
/
Number of SMEmembers
/ Number of otherenterprise members
/ Number of other SME-AG members
/
page 24
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Research for thebenefit of SMEsResearch for SMEs
7th Framework Programme onResearch, TechnologicalDevelopment and Demonstration
Proposal Submission
A2.2Proposal Number Proposal Acronym EDIPAC Participant number 7
INFORMATION ON PARTICIPANTS (ONE FORM PER PARTICIPANT)
Organisation short name Inn-R
Dependencies with (an)other participant(s)
Are there dependencies between your organisation and (an)other participant(s) inthis proposal? (Yes or No)
NO
If Yes:
Participant Number Organisation Short Name Character ofdependence
Participant Number Organisation Short Name Character ofdependence
Participant Number Organisation Short Name Character ofdependence
Contact points
Person in charge (For the co-ordinator (participant number 1) this person is the one who theCommission will contact in the first instance)
Family name Strongfellow First name(s) Karel
Title Prof. Dr. Sex (Female – F /Male – M)
M
Position in the organisation Professor
Department/Faculty/Institute/Laboratory name/ …
Chemistry Department
Address (if different from the legal address)
Street name Number
Town
Postal Code / Cedex
Country
Phone 1 +31 20 525 8085 Phone 2
E-mail [email protected] Fax +31 20 525 481
page 25
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Research for thebenefit of SMEsResearch for SMEs
7th Framework Programme onResearch, TechnologicalDevelopment and Demonstration
Proposal Submission
A2.1Proposal Number Proposal Acronym EDIPAC Participant number 8
Status of your organisation
INFORMATION ON PARTICIPANTS (ONE FORM PER PARTICIPANT)
If your organisation has already registered for FP7, enter your Participant IdentityCode
Organisation legal name IPT
Type of participant: RTD Performer
Basic administrative data
Legal address
Street name Musterstrasse Number 9
Town Ludwigshafen
Postal Code / Cedex 67059
Country Germany
Internet homepage (optional) www.ipt.de
Certain types of organisations benefit from special conditions under the FP7 participation rules. TheCommission also collects data for statistical purposes.The guidance notes will help you complete this section.
Please ‘tick’ the relevant box(es) if your organisation falls into one or more of the followingcategories.
1/ Public body YES □ NO ⌧2/ Non profit organisation YES □ NO ⌧
Please select the type of activity of your organisation: HE / RES / IND / SERV / OTHActivity type (NACE code): 2430 - Manufacture of paints, varnishes and similar coatings, printingink and mastics
page 26
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Research for thebenefit of SMEsResearch for SMEs
7th Framework Programme onResearch, TechnologicalDevelopment and Demonstration
Proposal Submission
A2.1Do you carry out some form of economic activity (and are therefore regarded as an enterprise’)
YES
IF YES:
Based on the figures above, do you meet the following additional criteria:
1/ You have less than 250 Employees?
2/ Your turnover is less than 50 mill euro or your annual balance sheet total is less than 43 mill euro?
3/ You are autonomous, and if not after having taken into account the data of your partner and/or linkedenterprises, you are still in conformity with questions 1 and 2 above?
Following this can you confirm that you are an SME according to the Recommendation
2003/361/EC in the version of 6th May 2003:
YES / NO
If you are an SME-AG, please provide the following information:
Total data of your enterprise:
Staff headcount 110 Annual turnover 43 mill € Annual balance sheet 31 mill €
How many EU Member States or Associated Countries are represented in yourassociation/grouping?
/
Percentage of SMEmembers
/ Percentage of otherenterprises members
/ Percentage of otherSME-AG members
/
Number of SMEmembers
/ Number of otherenterprise members
/ Number of other SME-AG members
/
page 27
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Research for thebenefit of SMEsResearch for SMEs
7th Framework Programme onResearch, TechnologicalDevelopment and Demonstration
Proposal Submission
A2.2Proposal Number Proposal Acronym EDIPAC Participant number 8
INFORMATION ON PARTICIPANTS (ONE FORM PER PARTICIPANT)
Organisation short name IPT
Dependencies with (an)other participant(s)
Are there dependencies between your organisation and (an)other participant(s) inthis proposal? (Yes or No)
NO
If Yes:
Participant Number Organisation Short Name Character ofdependence
Participant Number Organisation Short Name Character ofdependence
Participant Number Organisation Short Name Character ofdependence
Contact points
Person in charge (For the co-ordinator (participant number 1) this person is the one who theCommission will contact in the first instance)
Family name Mustermann First name(s) Max
Title Dr. Ing. Sex (Female – F /Male – M)
M
Position in the organisation Head of Unit
Department/Faculty/Institute/Laboratory name/ …
Innovation management
Address (if different from the legal address)
Street name Number
Town
Postal Code / Cedex
Country
Phone 1 +49 621 12345 Phone 2
E-mail [email protected] Fax +49 621 12347
page 28
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Research for thebenefit of SMEsResearch for SMEs
7th Framework Programme onResearch, TechnologicalDevelopment and Demonstration
Proposal Submission
A2.1Proposal Number Proposal Acronym EDIPAC Participant number 9
Status of your organisation
INFORMATION ON PARTICIPANTS (ONE FORM PER PARTICIPANT)
If your organisation has already registered for FP7, enter your Participant IdentityCode
Organisation legal name IPT
Type of participant: RTD Performer
Basic administrative data
Legal address
Street name Plac Bankowy Number 9
Town Warszawa
Postal Code / Cedex 00-001
Country Poland
Internet homepage (optional) www.ita.pl
Certain types of organisations benefit from special conditions under the FP7 participation rules. TheCommission also collects data for statistical purposes.The guidance notes will help you complete this section.
Please ‘tick’ the relevant box(es) if your organisation falls into one or more of the followingcategories.
1/ Public body YES □ NO ⌧2/ Non profit organisation YES □ NO ⌧
Please select the type of activity of your organisation: HE / RES / IND / SERV / OTHActivity type (NACE code): 7482 - Packaging activities
page 29
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Research for thebenefit of SMEsResearch for SMEs
7th Framework Programme onResearch, TechnologicalDevelopment and Demonstration
Proposal Submission
A2.1Do you carry out some form of economic activity (and are therefore regarded as an enterprise’)
YES
IF YES:
Based on the figures above, do you meet the following additional criteria:
1/ You have less than 250 Employees?
2/ Your turnover is less than 50 mill euro or your annual balance sheet total is less than 43 mill euro?
3/ You are autonomous, and if not after having taken into account the data of your partner and/or linkedenterprises, you are still in conformity with questions 1 and 2 above?
Following this can you confirm that you are an SME according to the Recommendation
2003/361/EC in the version of 6th May 2003:
YES / NO
If you are an SME-AG, please provide the following information:
Total data of your enterprise:
Staff headcount 350 Annual turnover 45 mill € Annual balance sheet 40 mill €
How many EU Member States or Associated Countries are represented in yourassociation/grouping?
/
Percentage of SMEmembers
/ Percentage of otherenterprises members
/ Percentage of otherSME-AG members
/
Number of SMEmembers
/ Number of otherenterprise members
/ Number of other SME-AG members
/
page 30
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Research for thebenefit of SMEsResearch for SMEs
7th Framework Programme onResearch, TechnologicalDevelopment and Demonstration
Proposal Submission
A2.2Proposal Number Proposal Acronym EDIPAC Participant number 9
INFORMATION ON PARTICIPANTS (ONE FORM PER PARTICIPANT)
Organisation short name ITA
Dependencies with (an)other participant(s)
Are there dependencies between your organisation and (an)other participant(s) inthis proposal? (Yes or No)
NO
If Yes:
Participant Number Organisation Short Name Character ofdependence
Participant Number Organisation Short Name Character ofdependence
Participant Number Organisation Short Name Character ofdependence
Contact points
Person in charge (For the co-ordinator (participant number 1) this person is the one who theCommission will contact in the first instance)
Family name Kijowski First name(s) Andrzej
Title Sex (Female – F /Male – M)
M
Position in the organisation Director
Department/Faculty/Institute/Laboratory name/ …
Address (if different from the legal address)
Street name Number
Town
Postal Code / Cedex
Country
Phone 1 +48 22 124578 Phone 2
E-mail +48 22 124578 Fax +48 22 1245710
page 31
A3.1
ProposalN
umber
ProposalA
cronym
EDIPAC
Participantnu
mber
1
InFP
7,therearedifferentmethodsforcalculatingindirectcosts.Thevarious
options
areexplained
intheguidance
notes.Pleasebeaw
arethatnotall
options
areavailableto
alltypes
oforganisations.P
leaseindicatetheway
inwhich
youwillreportyour
indirectcosts:
Realind
irectcosts
□Specialtransitionalflatrate
□Simplifiedmethod
⌧Standardflatrate
□Mylegalentity
isestablishedinan
ICPCandIshallusethelumpsumfund
ingmod
elmethod[NO]
*thesecolumns
shouldnotbefilledinbyRTD
perform
ersas
they
arecoveredbythesubcontractingofSME-AGs
TypeofActivity
RTD/Inn
ovation*
Dem
onstration*
Managem
ent
Other
TOTA
L
Personn
elCosts
21000
031
250
16000
68250
Sub
contractingto
RTDPerform
ers
778000
00
0778000
Other
Sub
contracting
00
00
0
Other
directcosts
5250
00
9000
14250
Indirectcosts
15750
018
750
15000
49500
Lumsum,flatrate
orscale-of-unit
00
00
0
Totalcosts820000
050
000
40000
910000
Requested
ECContribution
615000
050
000
40000
705000
TotalR
eceipts
00
00
0
Pleaseuseas
manycopiesofform
A3.1as
necessaryforthenumberofpartners
Form
A3.1page
1of
9
page 32
EU
RO
PE
AN
CO
MM
ISS
ION
Res
earc
hfo
rth
eb
enef
ito
fS
ME
sR
esea
rch
for
SM
Es
7th
Fra
mew
ork
Pro
gram
me
onR
esea
rch,
Tec
hnol
ogic
alD
evel
opm
enta
ndD
emon
stra
tion
Pro
po
salS
ub
mis
sio
n
A3.1
ProposalN
umber
ProposalA
cronym
EDIPAC
Participantnu
mber
2
InFP
7,therearedifferentmethodsforcalculatingindirectcosts.Thevarious
options
areexplained
intheguidance
notes.Pleasebeaw
arethatnotall
options
areavailableto
alltypes
oforganisations.P
leaseindicatetheway
inwhich
youwillreportyour
indirectcosts:
Realind
irectcosts
□Specialtransitionalflatrate
□Simplifiedmethod
⌧Standardflatrate
□Mylegalentity
isestablishedinan
ICPCandIshallusethelumpsumfund
ingmod
elmethod[NO]
*thesecolumns
shouldnotbefilledinbyRTD
perform
ersas
they
arecoveredbythesubcontractingofSME-AGs
TypeofActivity
RTD/Inn
ovation*
Dem
onstration*
Managem
ent
Other
TOTA
L
PersonnelCosts
8700
100000
8500
6000
23200
Sub
contractingto
RTD
Perform
ers
00
00
100000
OtherSub
contracting
00
00
0
Otherdirectcosts
2175
00
3375
5550
Indirectcosts
6525
05100
5625
17250
Lumsum,flatrateor
scale-of-unit
00
00
0
Totalcosts
17400
100000
13600
15000
146000
Requested
ECContribution
13050
50000
13600
15000
91650
TotalR
eceipts
00
00
0
Pleaseuseas
manycopiesofform
A3.1as
necessaryforthenumberofpartners
Form
A3.1page
2of
9
page 33
EU
RO
PE
AN
CO
MM
ISS
ION
Res
earc
hfo
rth
eb
enef
ito
fS
ME
sR
esea
rch
for
SM
Es
7th
Fra
mew
ork
Pro
gram
me
onR
esea
rch,
Tec
hnol
ogic
alD
evel
opm
enta
ndD
emon
stra
tion
Pro
po
salS
ub
mis
sio
n
A3.1
ProposalN
umber
ProposalA
cronym
EDIPAC
Participantnu
mber
3
InFP
7,therearedifferentmethodsforcalculatingindirectcosts.Thevarious
options
areexplained
intheguidance
notes.Pleasebeaw
arethatnotall
options
areavailableto
alltypes
oforganisations.P
leaseindicatetheway
inwhich
youwillreportyour
indirectcosts:
Realind
irectcosts
□Specialtransitionalflatrate
□Simplifiedmethod
⌧Standardflatrate
□Mylegalentity
isestablishedinan
ICPCandIshallusethelumpsumfund
ingmod
elmethod[NO]
*thesecolumns
shouldnotbefilledinbyRTD
perform
ersas
they
arecoveredbythesubcontractingofSME-AGs
TypeofActivity
RTD/Inn
ovation*
Dem
onstration*
Managem
ent
Other
TOTA
L
PersonnelCosts
15750
04375
20160
40285
Subcontractingto
RTD
Perform
ers
00
00
0
OtherSub
contracting
00
00
0
Otherdirectcosts
3938
00
11340
15278
Indirectcosts
11812
02625
18900
33337
Lumsum,flatrateor
scale-of-unit
00
00
0
Totalcosts
31500
07000
50400
88900
Requested
ECContribution
23625
07000
50400
81025
TotalR
eceipts
00
00
0
Pleaseuseas
manycopiesofform
A3.1as
necessaryforthenumberofpartners
Form
A3.1page
3of
9
page 34
EU
RO
PE
AN
CO
MM
ISS
ION
Res
earc
hfo
rth
eb
enef
ito
fS
ME
sR
esea
rch
for
SM
Es
7th
Fra
mew
ork
Pro
gram
me
onR
esea
rch,
Tec
hnol
ogic
alD
evel
opm
enta
ndD
emon
stra
tion
Pro
po
salS
ub
mis
sio
n
A3.1
ProposalN
umber
ProposalA
cronym
EDIPAC
Participantnu
mber
4
InFP
7,therearedifferentmethodsforcalculatingindirectcosts.Thevarious
options
areexplained
intheguidance
notes.Pleasebeaw
arethatnotall
options
areavailableto
alltypes
oforganisations.P
leaseindicatetheway
inwhich
youwillreportyour
indirectcosts:
Realind
irectcosts
□Specialtransitionalflatrate
□Simplifiedmethod
⌧Standardflatrate
□Mylegalentity
isestablishedinan
ICPCandIshallusethelumpsumfund
ingmod
elmethod[NO]
*thesecolumns
shouldnotbefilledinbyRTD
perform
ersas
they
arecoveredbythesubcontractingofSME-AGs
TypeofActivity
RTD/Inn
ovation*
Dem
onstration*
Managem
ent
Other
TOTA
L
PersonnelCosts
9300
04250
6400
19950
Sub
contractingto
RTD
Perform
ers
167000
00
0167000
OtherSub
contracting
00
00
0
Otherdirectcosts
2325
00
3600
5925
Indirectcosts
6975
02550
6000
15525
Lumsum,flatrateor
scale-of-unit
00
00
0
Totalcosts
185600
06800
16000
208400
Requested
ECContribution
139200
06800
16000
162000
TotalR
eceipts
00
00
0
Pleaseuseas
manycopiesofform
A3.1as
necessaryforthenumberofpartners
Form
A3.1page
4of
9
page 35
EU
RO
PE
AN
CO
MM
ISS
ION
Res
earc
hfo
rth
eb
enef
ito
fS
ME
sR
esea
rch
for
SM
Es
7th
Fra
mew
ork
Pro
gram
me
onR
esea
rch,
Tec
hnol
ogic
alD
evel
opm
enta
ndD
emon
stra
tion
Pro
po
salS
ub
mis
sio
n
A3.1
ProposalN
umber
ProposalA
cronym
EDIPAC
Participantnu
mber
5
InFP
7,therearedifferentmethodsforcalculatingindirectcosts.Thevarious
options
areexplained
intheguidance
notes.Pleasebeaw
arethatnotall
options
areavailableto
alltypes
oforganisations.P
leaseindicatetheway
inwhich
youwillreportyour
indirectcosts:
Realind
irectcosts
□Specialtransitionalflatrate
□Simplifiedmethod
⌧Standardflatrate
□Mylegalentity
isestablishedinan
ICPCandIshallusethelumpsumfund
ingmod
elmethod[NO]
*thesecolumns
shouldnotbefilledinbyRTD
perform
ersas
they
arecoveredbythesubcontractingofSME-AGs
TypeofActivity
RTD/Inn
ovation*
Dem
onstration*
Managem
ent
Other
TOTA
L
PersonnelCosts
8850
04062
6000
18912
Subcontractingto
RTD
Perform
ers
167000
00
0167000
OtherSub
contracting
00
00
0
Otherdirectcosts
2212
00
3375
5587
Indirectcosts
6638
02438
5625
14701
Lumsum,flatrateor
scale-of-unit
00
00
0
Totalcosts
184700
06500
15000
206200
Requested
ECContribution
138525
06500
15000
160025
TotalR
eceipts
00
00
0
Pleaseuseas
manycopiesofform
A3.1as
necessaryforthenumberofpartners
Form
A3.1page
5of
9
page 36
EU
RO
PE
AN
CO
MM
ISS
ION
Res
earc
hfo
rth
eb
enef
ito
fS
ME
sR
esea
rch
for
SM
Es
7th
Fra
mew
ork
Pro
gram
me
onR
esea
rch,
Tec
hnol
ogic
alD
evel
opm
enta
ndD
emon
stra
tion
Pro
po
salS
ub
mis
sio
n
A3.1
ProposalN
umber
ProposalA
cronym
EDIPAC
Participantnu
mber
6
InFP
7,therearedifferentmethodsforcalculatingindirectcosts.Thevarious
options
areexplained
intheguidance
notes.Pleasebeaw
arethatnotall
options
areavailableto
alltypes
oforganisations.P
leaseindicatetheway
inwhich
youwillreportyour
indirectcosts:
Realind
irectcosts
□Specialtransitionalflatrate
□Simplifiedmethod
⌧Standardflatrate
□Mylegalentity
isestablishedinan
ICPCandIshallusethelumpsumfund
ingmod
elmethod[NO]
*thesecolumns
shouldnotbefilledinbyRTD
perform
ersas
they
arecoveredbythesubcontractingofSME-AGs
TypeofActivity
RTD/Inn
ovation*
Dem
onstration*
Managem
ent
Other
TOTA
L
PersonnelCosts
5500
03937
12600
22037
Subcontractingto
RTD
Perform
ers
00
00
0
OtherSub
contracting
00
00
0
Otherdirectcosts
1375
00
7087
8462
Indirectcosts
4125
02363
11813
18301
Lumsum,flatrateor
scale-of-unit
00
00
0
Totalcosts
11000
06300
31500
48800
Requested
ECContribution
8250
06300
31500
46050
TotalR
eceipts
00
00
0
Pleaseuseas
manycopiesofform
A3.1as
necessaryforthenumberofpartners
Form
A3.1page
6of
9
EU
RO
PE
AN
CO
MM
ISS
ION
Res
earc
hfo
rth
eb
enef
ito
fS
ME
sR
esea
rch
for
SM
Es
7th
Fra
mew
ork
Pro
gram
me
onR
esea
rch,
Tec
hnol
ogic
alD
evel
opm
enta
ndD
emon
stra
tion
Pro
po
salS
ub
mis
sio
n
page 37
A3.1
ProposalN
umber
ProposalA
cronym
EDIPAC
Participantnu
mber
7
InFP
7,therearedifferentmethodsforcalculatingindirectcosts.Thevarious
options
areexplained
intheguidance
notes.Pleasebeaw
arethatnotall
options
areavailableto
alltypes
oforganisations.P
leaseindicatetheway
inwhich
youwillreportyour
indirectcosts:
Realind
irectcosts
□Specialtransitionalflatrate
□Simplifiedmethod
⌧Standardflatrate
□Mylegalentity
isestablishedinan
ICPCandIshallusethelumpsumfund
ingmod
elmethod[NO]
*thesecolumns
shouldnotbefilledinbyRTD
perform
ersas
they
arecoveredbythesubcontractingofSME-AGs
TypeofActivity
RTD/Inn
ovation*
Dem
onstration*
Managem
ent
Other
TOTA
L
PersonnelCosts
00
4500
04500
Subcontractingto
RTD
Perform
ers
00
00
0
OtherSub
contracting
00
00
0
Otherdirectcosts
00
00
0
Indirectcosts
00
2700
02700
Lumsum,flatrateor
scale-of-unit
00
00
0
Totalcosts
00
7200
07200
Requested
ECContribution
00
7200
07200
TotalR
eceipts
00
00
0
Pleaseuseas
manycopiesofform
A3.1as
necessaryforthenumberofpartners
Form
A3.1page
7of
9
page 38
EU
RO
PE
AN
CO
MM
ISS
ION
Res
earc
hfo
rth
eb
enef
ito
fS
ME
sR
esea
rch
for
SM
Es
7th
Fra
mew
ork
Pro
gram
me
onR
esea
rch,
Tec
hnol
ogic
alD
evel
opm
enta
ndD
emon
stra
tion
Pro
po
salS
ub
mis
sio
n
A3.1
ProposalN
umber
ProposalA
cronym
EDIPAC
Participantnu
mber
8
InFP
7,therearedifferentmethodsforcalculatingindirectcosts.Thevarious
options
areexplained
intheguidance
notes.Pleasebeaw
arethatnotall
options
areavailableto
alltypes
oforganisations.P
leaseindicatetheway
inwhich
youwillreportyour
indirectcosts:
Realind
irectcosts
□Specialtransitionalflatrate
□Simplifiedmethod
⌧Standardflatrate
□Mylegalentity
isestablishedinan
ICPCandIshallusethelumpsumfund
ingmod
elmethod[NO]
*thesecolumns
shouldnotbefilledinbyRTD
perform
ersas
they
arecoveredbythesubcontractingofSME-AGs
TypeofActivity
RTD/Inn
ovation*
Dem
onstration*
Managem
ent
Other
TOTA
L
PersonnelCosts
00
6563
06563
Sub
contractingto
RTD
Perform
ers
00
00
0
OtherSub
contracting
00
00
0
Otherdirectcosts
00
00
0
Indirectcosts
00
3937
03937
Lumsum,flatrateor
scale-of-unit
00
00
0
Totalcosts
00
10500
010
500
Requested
ECContribution
00
10500
010
500
TotalR
eceipts
00
00
0
Pleaseuseas
manycopiesofform
A3.1as
necessaryforthenumberofpartners
Form
A3.1page
8of
9
page 39
EU
RO
PE
AN
CO
MM
ISS
ION
Res
earc
hfo
rth
eb
enef
ito
fS
ME
sR
esea
rch
for
SM
Es
7th
Fra
mew
ork
Pro
gram
me
onR
esea
rch,
Tec
hnol
ogic
alD
evel
opm
enta
ndD
emon
stra
tion
Pro
po
salS
ub
mis
sio
n
A3.1
ProposalN
umber
ProposalA
cronym
EDIPAC
Participantnu
mber
9
InFP
7,therearedifferentmethodsforcalculatingindirectcosts.Thevarious
options
areexplained
intheguidance
notes.Pleasebeaw
arethatnotall
options
areavailableto
alltypes
oforganisations.P
leaseindicatetheway
inwhich
youwillreportyour
indirectcosts:
Realind
irectcosts
□Specialtransitionalflatrate
□Simplifiedmethod
⌧Standardflatrate
□Mylegalentity
isestablishedinan
ICPCandIshallusethelumpsumfund
ingmod
elmethod[NO]
*thesecolumns
shouldnotbefilledinbyRTD
perform
ersas
they
arecoveredbythesubcontractingofSME-AGs
TypeofActivity
RTD/Inn
ovation*
Dem
onstration*
Managem
ent
Other
TOTA
L
PersonnelCosts
00
3000
03000
Subcontractingto
RTD
Perform
ers
00
00
0
OtherSub
contracting
00
00
0
Otherdirectcosts
00
00
0
Indirectcosts
00
1800
01800
Lumsum,flatrateor
scale-of-unit
00
00
0
Totalcosts
00
4800
04800
Requested
ECContribution
00
4800
04800
TotalR
eceipts
00
00
0
Pleaseuseas
manycopiesofform
A3.1as
necessaryforthenumberofpartners
Form
A3.1page
9of
9
page 40
EU
RO
PE
AN
CO
MM
ISS
ION
Res
earc
hfo
rth
eb
enef
ito
fS
ME
sR
esea
rch
for
SM
Es
7th
Fra
mew
ork
Pro
gram
me
onR
esea
rch,
Tec
hnol
ogic
alD
evel
opm
enta
ndD
emon
stra
tion
Pro
po
salS
ub
mis
sio
n
A3.2
ProposalN
umber
ProposalA
cronym
EDIPAC
Num
berofparticipants(total):9
Num
berofSME-AG:0
Num
berofRTD
:6Num
berofOTH
:3Theparticipantsshouldbegrouped
bycategory–Co-ordinator
isalwaysnumberone
Maximum
ECcontribution=110%
ofsubcontractingofRTD
perform
ersexcl.VAT
1223200
Totalamountofsubcontractingto
RTD
perform
ers,excl.VAT:
1112000
Participantnu
mber
inthisproposal
Organisation
shortname
Type
Estimated
eligiblecosts(who
ledurationoftheproject)
Total
Receipts
Requested
EC
contribution
RTD/Inno
vation
Dem
onstration
Managem
ent
Other
TOTA
L
1PFFM
SME
42000
subc778000
050
000
40000
910000
0705000
2TT
SME
17400
100000
13600
15000
146000
091
650
3EuO
pSME
31500
07000
50400
88900
081
025
4LeVer
SME
18600
subc167000
06800
16000
208400
0162000
5PisC
SME
17700
subc167000
06500
15000
206200
0160025
6Inn-R
SME
11000
06300
31500
48800
046
050
7NUN
RTD
00
7200
07200
07200
8IPT
RTD
00
10500
010
500
010
500
9ITA
RTD
00
4800
04800
04800
TOTA
L1250200
100000
112700
167900
1630800
01268250
page 41
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Research for thebenefit of SMEsResearch for SMEs
7th Framework Programme onResearch, TechnologicalDevelopment and Demonstration
Proposal Submission
A3.2The FINAL requested EC contribution will be either the "total requested EC contribution" or the"maximum EC contribution equal to 110 % of subcontracting of RTD performers excl. VAT ", which everis the lowest.
1 223 200
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
`Part B
page1
RESEARCH FOR SME’S - EXEMPLAR PROPOSAL
Single Stage proposal
Proposal full title: EDIBLE PACKAGING FOR FOOD
Proposal acronym: EDIPAC
Type of funding scheme: Research for SME’s under the Capacities Programme
Name and organisation of the coordinating person: John Bigg of Passive FoodFilms Manufacturing
Please note that this is only an exemplar proposal that has been writtenas a reference document to help SME’s format their own submissions; itis not a real bid. The content is entirely fictional and thus it is notpossible to judge the realism of the imaginary goals, or the viability of theconcept, but to allow realistic evaluation, key assumptions have beenmade around aspects such as the nature of the polymer, and risk ofcontamination etc. No part of the proposal should be cut and pasted intoany other document.
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
page 2
List
List of participants:Participant Number& Type
Participant name Participant shortname
Country
1 SME(Coordinator)
Passive Food FilmsManufacturingA SME manufacturer
PFFM UK
2 SME Tasty TestersA food testing andvalidation organisation
TT Italy
3 SME Euro OpiA consumer opinionorganisation
EuOP Germany
4 SME Les VergersFruit and vegetablesuppliers
LeVer France
5 SME PisciCatchFish supplier
PisC Portugal
6 SME Inno-RetailInnovative ‘green ‘retailers
Inn-R Slovakia
7 RTD performer National University ofthe Netherlands
NUN Netherlands
8 RTD Performer IPT IPT Germany
9 RTD Performer ITA ITA Poland
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
Part BContents
page3
Contents:Scientific and/or technological excellence, relevant to the topics/activities addressed by the call
1 Scientific / Technological Quality
1.1 Soundness concept and quality of objectives
1.2 Innovative character in relation to the state-of-the-art
1.3 Contribution to advancement of knowledge / technological progress
1.4 Quality and effectiveness of S/T methodology and associated work plan
2 Implementation
2.1 Quality of the consortium as a whole
2.1.1 Description of project management structure and procedures
2.1.2 Description of the consortium
2.2 Appropriate allocation and justification of the resources to be committed
3. Impact
3.1 Contribution, at the European and/or International level, to the expected impacts listed in thewok programme under the relevant activity
3.2 Appropriateness of measures envisaged for the dissemination and/or exploitation of projectresults, and management of intellectual property
3.2.1 Project results and management of intellectual property
3.2.2 Dissemination and/or exploitation of project results
4. Ethical Issues
5. Consideration of gender aspects
6. List of References and Related Projects
7. Additional Information and support
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
page 4
Scientific /TechnologicalQuality1
1.1Sound concept and quality of andobjectives
The proposed project (EDIPAC) aims to bring a new product to the food packaging market – an ediblefilm material that will protect food for at least as long as traditional packaging materials but will becheaper, lighter weight and will eliminate disposal/recycling costs with the following properties:
BENEFITS
- Edible (no waste) with zero toxicity, easy digestibility and acceptable organoleptic quality- Applicable to a variety of important food: [to keep the work realistic] the proposal focuses initially uponwhite fish (important low fat source of protein) and freshly dried / sliced apple (important contribution to 5a day healthy eating message)- Protective, thus increasing food safe storage time- Low cost (no more expensive than conventional food plastics)- Accepted by consumers (but also by distributors, retailers and regulatory bodies)- Demonstrable impact advantages to the environment via reduction of volume to waste- Having a lower carbon footprint in manufacture and disposal than conventional food wrapping plastics
Packaging of food is vital to its transport, protection and display. The pack carries information andinstruction; however, the packaging costs experienced by the manufacturer are often a significant elementof their final product cost. As food prices are rising across the world, the drive to reduce costs and remaincompetitive is stronger than ever. The cost of the package is passed to the consumer who usually finds theproduct inaccessible due to the pack and the package disposal wasteful. The nature of the pack can add50% to the carbon footprint of the final article. Disposal and recycling problems are experienced both bythe consumer and the manufacturer and retailer, and for some packaging materials these are problematicand expensive, both in terms of the product costs and in terms of the environmental impact of recycling ordisposal. (See EU Directive 1999/32/EC for specifications and permitted disposal methods )
Scientific andor technologicalexcellence, relevant to thetopics/activities addressedby the call1
NB Make sure that the objectives are realistic and their achievement verifiable within the project since the progressof the project will be measured against these goals.If the work is of a pre-competitive nature it must be shown that further development is necessary after the end of theproject in order to produce marketable products, processes or services. However, the focus should be on positiveexploitation following completion of the research.
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
Scientific / TechnologicalQuality1
page5
New directives are constantly being introduced to limit the use of non-biodegradable packaging and food manufacturers and retailers are focussing onpackaging to reduce their carbon footprint. In fact, the amount of food andpackaging waste generated by UK food and drink manufacturers alone isestimated at around 3 million tons a year. Food waste produces methane, whichis 21 times more damaging to the environment than CO2. This is replicatedacross other EU nations. Therefore one key priority for the food manufacturingand distribution industries is to send zero food packaging waste to landfill by2015. The industry is working with the Waste and Resources Action Programme(WRAP) to identify best practice in the prevention of food and packaging waste.
In addition to value, the consumer is looking for convenience and improvedstorage life (if a product can be packed to avoid the need to chill then the carbonfootprint of the refrigeration stage is lowered). However there must also beconsideration to food security on an International scale, and Governmentsaround the world are trying to reduce food lost due to its degradation anddecomposition under storage, so it is not acceptable that lack of chilling isaccompanied by shorter storage times and /or more food waste.
There is a strong need for a low cost packaging concept that will satisfy theseessential marketing and protection requirements, yet has negligible disposalproblems. Thus the proposal is strongly sector driven. However, since thisproposed packaging material will actually be eaten, whatever advantages thepackaging has in terms of reliability, functionality and easy biodegradation therewill be no impact unless the novel packaging is accepted by the consumer(bothfrom an organoleptic and a practicality standpoint).
CONSUMER CONCERNS
However, in the recent past, we have seen that other technologies that can bedemonstrated to solve particular problems have been totally rejected due toconsumer refusal to purchase/consume.
In different traditional products the package outer layer can be eaten, forinstance sausages and cheese. These are part of the product not really anexternal packaging material it is viewed as an essential component. However,what the food manufacturing industry is looking for is a more general materialwith different applications for a range of foods. One of these materials could bethe polymer Fantasylene and the technical development of effective edibleFantasylene food covering material is the topic of this SME proposal – EDIPAC.
The new non-toxic coating material, Fantasylene that was initially developed forthe inert encapsulation of drugs, has proved unreliable for that application becausefor the particular compounds tested it intermittently mimics the taste, texture and
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
page 6
Scientific /TechnologicalQuality1
aroma of the encapsulated drug compound. However, the material has beenshown to be meta-stable, being an insulator in the alpha-phase and conductive inthe beta-phase. An opportunity has been recognised to exploit this behaviour anduse a stable beta Fantasylene as an edible packaging material to be surfacecoated directly onto several trial foods to form a completely edible packaging.
The material to be tested will be applied to the food during the foodmanufacture/processing stage initially, since the deposition equipment iscomplex and must be standardised and used by trained staff. It is not beingdeveloped as a secondary independent wrap. Since the material is appliedimmediately the food is produced and portioned there is minimal risk of microbialcontamination and hence, improved shelf life. The boundary layer andpermeability qualities of the material also ensure that the subsequent storage willbe optimised. Due to its nature it will not be able to separate the material fromthe underlying food material; it is an integral part of the food and will beconsumed alongside the food, as opposed to a secondary wrapping. Thereforeconsiderable research is needed into the effect it will have during foodpreparation and cooking; it is not yet known if it can only be applied and utilisedfor foods that do not need further cooking at home. Hence the SME, TastyTesters (TT – 2) will perform a range of cooking trials on material prepared in theusual way as well as food subjected to extremes of heat etc to test this aspect ofthe product (By including the apple in the test they will be able to utilise andapply results to whole apple - the film could remove the need for storage in a gasatmosphere), apple slices and apples prepared for inclusion into baked desserts).
However, we do know from previous work (see publications) that it is entirelyedible, non toxic, lacking any discernable taste and is biodegradable
There are many technical aspects to be covered in developing the packaging filmfurther and the work needs to be done in an integrated manner. The breadth ofthe investigation would be beyond the scope of any single SME. However,relevant expertise can be assembled from across the EU. The SME, Plastic FoodFilms Manufacturing (PFFM partner 1) will act as the overall project coordinator.
The European Public can avoid creating an annual 10,000 tonnes of plasticwaste if they were able to replace 20% of current food wrap with ediblepackaging material with an edible substance. This number is derived from the EUfood industry statistical unit and represents a total extrapolated from a largeindependent trans-national survey and is therefore valid.
Project participants are involved in the manufacture and packing of a carefullyselected range of foods across Europe such as fish, meat and cheese; but whitefish and apple slices were selected as examples for the project. The selection of
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
Scientific / TechnologicalQuality1
page7
these test foods was made since there are particular issues with the packaging,shelf life and /or storage of these products. They are also foods that arecommonly consumed therefore if successful, edible packs would makesignificant impact upon reduction of surplus plastics for disposal.
The public awareness, dissemination, awareness raising, food preparationtechniques, acceptability tests and feed -back to the technologists will be carriedout by the Tasty Testers (TT). They are an independent SME organisation that iscontracted by manufacturers, trade associations and retailers to carry outconsumer testing leading to new product and new formulation developmentacross the food chain. A major part of their role in this proposal is to work withthe RTD providers and the public (consumers) to ensure ongoing dialogueleading to consumer awareness and knowledge to maximise the acceptance ofthe material before the final launch. They will also be responsible for advising onmarketing and dissemination of taste panel and preparation tests.
In order to ensure that there is an unbiased and independent evaluation, TastyTesters will also work with the non-Governmental body and SME; Euro-Op(EuOP - partner 3, a well known European SME working on a range of publicperception issues); EuOP were central to the GM food debate and they havestrong links to the media throughout Member States. They are an SME and theyroutinely communicate with a wide range of other SME opinion forming groups.
It is essential to get the consumer on–board since there have been several pastexamples of technological innovation that have been developed and introducedwithout prior consumer acceptance resulting in total consumer opposition andsuspicion. Therefore it is essential to engage and test to ensure that the newproduct Fantasylene will be accepted by consumers. This will need to be doneon a product-by-product basis taking a specific example type (A coveracceptable on a hard, strong Cheddar Cheese might not be accepted since therind is traditional; however an edible outer layer might be acceptable if itprolongs the storage time after that block of cheese has been cut and surfacesexposed. The same edible external material might not be acceptable on a mildsoft cheese) the edible casing for one food type might not be widely accepted byconsumers on another food. Also, the covering on a hard cheese might be tootough for a flaky white fish. The dialogue and dissemination role will be a majorpart of the project. Inno-retail (Inn-R partner 6) has worked with a number of retailoutlets across several EU countries therefore their involvement will ensure thatthe product can be trailed independently in a variety of climates/cultures,different food types and tested on a variety of local tastes and eating habits.
Furthermore, Inno-Retail is an organisation that works actively with forward-
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
page 8
Scientific /TechnologicalQuality1
thinking but small retailers who are committed to providing their outlet shopswith eco-friendly and innovative products. Their slogan is ‘for the greenconsumer’ and the testing of a sustainable, edible plastic, reducingenvironmental impact from the sector by removing disposal issues is a logicaladdition to their range.
Verifiable and realistic Industrial, Economic Objectives of the Fantasyleneproject
The prime industrial/ economic objectives are
• Testing the material on selected foods and establishing usage patterns suchthat there is a subsequent twelve-fold increase in the demand for Fantasylene(if this is achieved it will represent up to 80m Euro worth of orders over thefirst 5 years)
• Reduction of food packaging and disposal costs by 70% when compared tothe conventional range of plastics utilised currently (this is based upon currentprocess – if the new polymer material is accepted widely, the cost is likely tofall further, thus increasing the margin of profit.)
• Increase in shelf-life of Fantasylene packaged food by 20% for the mostperishable foods such as sliced apple and fish. This is based upon chilledstorage of fish and is determined by standardised microbiological testing
• Reduction in refrigeration costs by 12.5% as verified by the Frozen andChilled Manufacturers Association due to an increase in chilled temperaturestorage as a result of reduction in microbial loading.
• Increase in product sales/unit shelf area up by 50% due to increasedconsumer demand and increased popularity of the foods as they becomeeasier for the consumer to deal with in terms of handling and preparation
• Approval by the European Food Standards Authority EFSA, which is likely tobe a straight forward process, since the product has already been approvedfor oral consumption when applied as a coating for encapsulated drugs takenby mouth.
• Establishing the range of foods that can be coated having an acceptable tasteprofile for the consumer
• Defining the limitation of usage in respect to any further cooking /homepreparation of the food
NB Make sure that theobjectives are realisticand their achievementverifiable within theproject since theprogress of the projectwill be measuredagainst these goals.
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
Scientific / TechnologicalQuality1
page9
The societal objectives are:
• Determination of the demand from shoppers for this novel packagingmaterial on the specific foods under test.
• Increased direct employment in Fantasylene manufacture by 100 jobs initially.
• Determine accurate statistics for quantification of replacement of conventionalpackaging material with this greener alternative in terms of demand, futureapplications to products, quantification of reduction in carbon emissions andcost savings.
• Increased skill level associated with its use and preparation in the foodmanufacturing sector by the establishment of a food training centre on theTasty Testers test site
• Improvement in working conditions (perishable foods)
• A reduction in packaging litter (10.000 tonnes per year). thus reducing wastecollection, land fill, greenhouse gases thus saving costs and environmentaleffects (figures derived from the EC)
• Reduction in use of secondary packaging.
• Reduction of CO2 emission (this is estimated to be 300.000 tonnes)compared with plastic packaging
• Ensure that the consumer is fully informed of the facts and is then able tofreely make their own decisions about acceptance of the beneficial nature ofthe edible packaging technology
This proposal fits well with the relevant European policy context related toreduction of landfill waste, greener produce, less food wastage (food security)and healthier population (less food spoilage) – EC 2008/20/EC
1.2 Innovative character in relation to thestate-of-the-art
A detailed literature study reveals that food packaging is a sophisticated scienceinvolving numerous technologies and a variety of materials. However, it adds tofinal food basket costs and waste streams (1) and this together with climatechange imperatives have resulted in a strong environmental lobby against theuse of non-degradable packaging material and a reduction in packaging volume(2). From time to time there have been concerns about the use of plasticmaterials contributing to health problems (such as reduction in fertility in males)as a result of migration of chemicals from plastic packs
Always link these tocurrent policy wherepossible - increase inconsumer knowledgeand acceptance of thenew packaging oncommon foods
A documentary studyincluding for example,literature,publications, patentsand data-basesearches. Limitationsof currentproducts/processesand services andcompeting techniquesshould be mentionedbriefly. (Relevantreferences should beprovided).
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
page 10
Scientific /TechnologicalQuality1
The movement across the sector to reduce the degree of secondary packaging(fewer carrier bags) has been welcomed and successfully adopted byconsumers across Europe.
Edible primary food packaging would solve many of the above problems. It isalready used for cheese and sausage meats as an integral part of manufacture.However, there are some issues with the traditional packaging; for example, strictvegetarians do not find the use of sausage skins derived from animal intestinesto be acceptable.
A further future intention based upon the coating material that is the subject ofthis proposal is to do more research in order to extend the utilisation of the ediblepackaging material to class A pharmaceutical drugs; the industry has alreadytaken an initial look at the possibility (4)
See table 3 (page 84) for a full list of patents resulting from a detailed patentsearch
The polymer Fantasylene was originally developed (5) by the National Universityof the Netherlands (NUN - Partner 7); they have the ability to manufacture andextrude the film but are not geared up to large scale manufacture. The currentdata on characterisation of the polymer is owned and manufactured by PassiveFood Film Manufacturing (PFFM - Partner 1). Designed specifically forsusceptibility to de-polymerisation; Fantasylene was developed originally incollaboration with the Extol Corporation for drug encapsulation. It had to bewithdrawn when it sporadically transmitted taste, aroma and texture of theenclosed medicines when they are taken orally (6). Subsequently, the compoundhas been found to exist in two forms. The amorphous crystalline form alphaphase, which also has insulating properties and the rogue crystalline beta phasewhich is able to transmit the properties of a substrate through its crystal lattice ().This instability is the result of unexplained changes in the phase transformationtemperature. A stable beta Fantasylene would form an ideal edible packagingmaterial for food, protecting the product whilst not interfering with the sensorytaste and texture that contribute to the enjoyment of consumption and with zerotoxicity. It is not yet known how it would be affected by any subsequent cookingprocess but the assumption is that this will depend on the combination of foodcomposition and association with the polymer. Therefore it will be dependent onthe food type and this initial work will be limited to white fish and prepared appleslices.
Put references wherethey are easilyaccessible – samepage, as foot notes, orshown at the end ofthe document.
Hints: In yourproposal, you MUSTdifferentiate between1.2 and 1.3 i.e.Innovative characteris not the same thingas Expansion ofKnowledge.Innovation applies tonew and novelapplications; whereasnew knowledge is theresult of discovery ofnew facts, methods etcper se. and these arenot necessarily usedor applied
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
Scientific / TechnologicalQuality1
page11
These were selected as important nutrients in a healthy diet and they are anexcellent source of protein and fibre respectively. An edible packaging, ifaccepted by the consumer, would encourage consumption of these foods andcontribute to the healthy eating agenda.
1.3 Contribution to advancement ofknowledge / technological progress
Reusable containers and recyclable materials are starting to addresssustainability issues, but costs and disposal as well as packaging quality,collection costs and low levels of recyclable materials are still causing problems.Such complex issues need to be tackled in several different ways and ifsuccessful, this project will make an important contribution to reduction ofpackaging wastes; hence indirect reduction in landfill and thus environmentalsustainability.
Main Innovations
The preliminary examination of the consumer viewpoint has shown that it wouldbe embraced, but testing after the compound has been developed and utilisedon specific foods will provide guidance for effective dissemination that mightpotentially be used for other product applications.
In the novel application for the beta Fantasylene there are several impliedtechnological innovations and an optimisation process might be needed toprovide frameworks for decision-making. These are not necessarily simple, andoptimisation judgments will need to be made (just as the consortium had tomake choices to limit the food types to be coated in this work).
An insufficientdescription of theinternational state ofthe art and lowinnovative contenthave proved to be themost serious defect ofproposals submittedfor evaluation so makesure that you addressthese very carefully
The overall strategy of the work plan must be described and activities leading to delivery must be detailed.
A simple project flow diagram can clarify and assist the understanding of the evaluators prior to the detaileddescriptions of tasks later described in the proposal. Graphics and diagram are often helpful for clarity but youshould not use colour.
Each time you present a table/graph or diagram you should cross check to ensure that the detail tallies with thelater parts of the proposal e.g. person-months, codes and task numbers.
Research must be broken down into component blocks of work and clear identification of who will deliver must begiven. Their contribution to the overall project must be clear.
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
page 12
Scientific /TechnologicalQuality1
Main innovations are:
• The stabilising of beta Fantasylene at temperatures up to normal human bodytemperature by using a crystallisation process
• Invisible thin film coating of delicate or irregular shaped foods at normaltemperature during storage and use (-24 to 40 degree C)
• Understanding the effects of the polymer coating on the properties of differentfoods
• Lab test production that can fulfil the food standards EC C 124.2002 sub 14 -the effects of the polymer coating on the properties of different foods
• Understand the complexity of the interactions of the polymer coating withspecific food stuffs as they are prepared and undergo secondary cooking inthe home
• Understand the reaction to, and acceptance of, edible food packaging byconsumers of different nations
• Development of public understanding alongside development of thetechnology; leading to public acceptance and subsequent gradualintroduction across food types.
Appraisal of Technical Risk
High risk factors for this project are:
• Fantasylene will not be stable in the long term in order for it to be fit forpurpose. This risk will be mitigated by thorough testing during storageconditions likely to be encountered during the storage of the foodstuffs
• Consumption could trigger unexpected outcomes (such as allergic reaction).This risk will be tested by normal consumer panels and testing of the productduring trials. The material is thoroughly characterised and the compositionknown. This data is necessary anyway for submission as part of the approvaldossier.
• At this stage it is not known what the degree of influence of the actual foodwrapped will be. There are major differences in composition, taste, texture,hygroscopic properties etc for different foods even those within the samefood group.
Where a particularproposal has a highinherent risk it isimportant todemonstrate actionsthat have been / willbe taken to minimisethis risk. Alternativestrategies for deliveryshould be identified tomitigate againstproposal failure.
This may also beaddressed under‘Implementation’andconsortiumdescription.
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
Scientific / TechnologicalQuality1
page13
Medium risk factors for this project are
• There will be problem resolving the requirements for thicker films forproduct protection with the need for minimum thickness for non-detectionand non-interference with the taste/aroma properties. The thicknessrequired will be optimised during the development process and is likely tobe a function of film properties but also the type/hardness and nature of thefoods stuff being packed in the Fantasylene
• An alternative packaging technology is a bubble layer with protein filmswhich is also used by Les Vergers in France. Les Vergers has the basicpatents for this film and will license this for free to the partners. Thismaterial is not edible and will be available as an alternative packagingmaterial and therefore this will not compete directly with the edible foodfilm.
• Deposited coating will react with the food substrates in some unexpectedand unexplained manner. The testing stages identified in the workpackages will test the sample foods thoroughly but each time a new foodtype is tested there will be the need for these initial tests. There is apossibility that a satisfactory result on food may be destroyed when thatfood is cooked.
• Processing and raw material costs might be higher than expected. This is amarket place factor and the costings have been carefully calculated fromtoday’s commodity and labour costs. However, the product will bepremium products and the consumer will be likely to be willing to pay apremium price given the considerable advantages of the packaging
• Printing resolution might be poor thus preventing adequate traceability andconsumer information via labelling. (Printing is not a major part of thisproject and considerable work will be needed to select optimum inks. Thisis a detailed project in itself that will need to be carried out by specialistSME’s if the material is found to be acceptable). However, this is a separateproject.
• There may be poor acceptance by consumers if they are not kept fullyinformed of the developments in packaging materials; hence the key roleplayed by 2 SMEs EuOP and Tasty Testers. These organisations are wellaware of consumer issues and experienced in public dialogue; this will beof major importance to the project. However, there has been some initialwork done that strongly suggests that there will be very positive consumeracceptance of the material.
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
page 14
Scientific /TechnologicalQuality1
• There is minimal risk that the overall carbon foot-print will be not be lower than with current foodpackaging/wrapping systems due to production wastage or other unforeseen difficulties despite obviousenvironmental advantages. Early stage calculations show that this is highly un-likely and the carbonfootprint will be very carefully calculated with robust data sets available.
1.4 Quality and effectiveness of S/T methodology andassociated work plan.
There are 6 work packages 1-6, each resulting in key deliverables, and 6 being the co-ordination.
1 Materials science (characterisation of Fantasylene) – to lead to a stable product
2 Deposition Process Development – defining the practical processes for the coating of the targetfoods
3 Product Specific manufacturing technology development – scale-up and identification, andaddressing any specific manufacturing challenges, developing the pilot process and producingmaterials for product assessment including basic labelling (not the subject of this proposal but eachpack will need some identification)
4 Product trials - including the preparation optimisation for the coated exemplar foods under test andtheir subsequent home storage and preparation of the coated products (consumer focus)
5 Consumer Acceptance and Dissemination. This includes (initial opinion following very early trials -without testing) and then after product prototype manufacture and tasting of products prepared innormal way and cooked as specified in work package 4. Changes in patterns of consumer acceptancemonitored both by measuring opinion before and after tasting tests etc
6 Consortium co-ordination - this will be continuous throughoutthe project and is described in the management section
Timing and sequence of delivery of the different work packages and their components should be shown using aGantt chart or similarDetailed work descriptions, broken down into packages, should be shown. The number of work packages MUST beappropriate to the complexity of the work and the overall value of the proposed proposal. The planning must besufficiently detailed to justify the effort and costs and allow progress monitoring by the CommissionTiming and sequence of delivery of the different WPs and their components should be shown using a Gantt chart /PERT chart or similarIn the work packages always quantify where you can e.g. ‘50 samples’ rather than ‘a number of samples’ in order todemonstrate the magnitude of the activity.
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
Scientific / TechnologicalQuality1
page15
Figure1Tim
elineofDeliverab
les/
Work
pac
kages
Task
Nam
e
WP
1-
Cha
ract
eris
atio
no
fFa
ntas
ylen
e
1.1
Lite
ratu
rere
view
1.2
Pro
vid
esa
mp
les
and
man
ufac
ture
bet
aco
mp
ound
inq
uant
ities
for
test
ing
1.3
Food
stor
age,
hand
ling
and
pre
par
atio
nfo
rco
atin
g
1.4
Pol
ymer
char
acte
risat
ion
&p
rod
uctio
n
WP
2-
Dep
osi
tio
nP
roce
ssD
evel
op
men
t
2.1
&2
Sup
ply
and
pre
par
efis
h
2.3
Dev
elop
coat
ing
tech
nolo
gy
WP
3-
Pro
duc
tsp
ecifi
cm
anuf
actu
ring
tech
nolo
gy
dev
elo
pm
ent
3.1
Dev
elop
tran
spor
tatio
nm
echa
nism
3.2
Dev
elop
surf
ace
trea
tmen
t
3.3
Inte
grat
eun
itp
roce
sses
3.4
Set
upd
epos
ition
tank
s
3.5
Inte
grat
edp
lant
oper
atio
nan
dop
timis
atio
nru
ns
WP
4-
Pro
duc
ttr
ials
4.1
Initi
alco
nsum
ervi
ews
4.2
Exa
min
efo
odsu
rfac
ep
rop
ertie
sin
itial
and
coat
ed
4.3
Coo
king
tria
lsun
coat
ed/c
oate
dfis
h
4.4
Chi
lling
tria
lsco
ated
/unc
oate
dap
ple
s
4.5
Chi
lling
tria
lsco
ated
/unc
oate
dfis
h
4.6
Mar
ket
acce
pta
nce
stat
istic
s-
initi
alop
inio
ns
4.7
She
lflif
etr
ials
4.8
Col
latio
nof
allr
etai
land
stor
age
dat
a
WP
5-
Co
nsum
erA
ccep
tanc
e/
Dis
sem
inat
ion
Act
ivit
y
5.1
Initi
alco
nsum
ervi
ews
(col
lect
edin
WP
4)an
alys
ed&
colla
ted
5.2
&3
Op
timum
cond
ition
sfo
rco
mm
erci
alha
ndlin
g,st
orag
e&
dis
trib
utio
n
det
erm
ined
and
dis
trib
uted
toal
ldis
trib
utor
s&
reta
ilou
tlets
stoc
king
fish
and
app
le
5.4
&5
Sal
esfig
ures
mon
itore
dfo
rfis
han
dap
ple
pro
duc
ts
5.6
Col
latio
nan
dan
alys
isof
allr
etai
l&st
orag
ed
ata,
cust
omer
feed
bac
ket
cto
form
ulat
ep
rod
uct
&na
tiona
l/reg
iona
lcon
sum
erac
cep
tanc
ein
form
atio
n
WP
6-
Pro
ject
man
agem
ent
and
coo
rdin
atio
n
6.1
Con
sort
ium
Man
agem
ent
Team
inp
lace
6.2
Con
sort
ium
pro
cess
and
pro
ced
ure
man
ual
6.3
Fina
ncia
lrec
ord
ing
mec
hani
sms
esta
blis
hed
6.4
Mid
-ter
mas
sess
men
tre
por
t
6.5
Fina
lPro
cess
rep
ort
and
doc
umen
tatio
n
0102
0304
0102
0304
Yr
1-
Mo
nths
Yr
2-
Mo
nths
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
page 16
Scientific /TechnologicalQuality1
Table1.4a:
Work
pac
kagelist
Work
pac
kage
No.
Work
pac
kage
title
Typeofac
tivity
Lead
Participan
tNo.
Lead
participan
tsh
ortna
me
Perso
nmonths
Start
month
End
month
WP1
Characterisation
ofFantasylene
RTD:Specificationofproperties
ofmaterial
7NUN
540
15
WP2
Deposition
process
development
RTD:Specificationofcoating
process/scaleup/applicationto
foodtypes
8&9
IPT/ITA
423
17
WP3
Productspecific
manufacturing
technology
development
RTD:Manufacturing
development
9ITA
794
20
WP4
Producttrials
DEM:Preparationofcoated
foodstestingSpecificationof
conditionsforstorageofcoated
foodsanddomestic(consumer
preparation/cooking)
2TT
102
22
WP5
Consumer
acceptance/
dissemination
activity
DEM:TransNationaltesting
programmetocheckacceptabilityof
selectedproducts;aidconsumer
understandingandconsumer
education,collectionofusagedata,
trainingconsumerinutilisation
3EuOp
250
24
WP6
Project
managementand
coordination
MGT:Management
1PFFM
171
24
TOTA
L227
Scientific / TechnologicalQuality1
page17
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
Table1.4b:Deliverab
lesList
Alwayscheckdatesagainstworkprogrammelistandavoidexcessivenumberofdeliverables:hint-deliverables
mustbenotifiedtotheREAimmediately–avoidexcessinthisregard
Deliverab
lenu
mber
Deliverab
letitle
WPno
.Nature
Dissemination
level
Delivery
date
1.1
Literaturereview
1R
PU
2
1.2
Providesamplesandmanufacturebeta
compoundinquantitiesfortestingand
characterisation
1P
PP
10
1.3
Foodstorage.handlingandpreparationfor
coating(fishandapples)
1P
PP
8
1.4
Polymercharacterisationandproduction
1P
PP
15
2.1
Supplyandpreparefish
2O
RE
6
2.2
Supplyandprepareapples
2O
RE
6
2.3
Developcoatingtechnology
2P
PP
17
3.1
Developtransportationmechanism
3P
PP
6
3.2
Developsurfacetreatment
3D
RE
8
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
page 18
Scientific /TechnologicalQuality1
Deliverab
lenu
mber
Deliverab
letitle
WPno
.Nature
Dissemination
level
Delivery
date
3.3
Integrateunitprocesses,depositiontrialsand
integration
3P
RE
6
3.4
Setupdepositiontrials
3P
RE
3
3.5
Integratedplantoperationandoptimisationruns
3D
RE
20
4.1
Initialconsumerviews
5O
PU
2
4.2
Examinefoodsurfacepropertiesinitialand
coatedforfreshandstoredfoods
4D
RE
18
4.3
Cookingtrialsuncoated/coatedfish
4O
PU
12
4.4
Chillingtrialsuncoated/coatedapples
4O
PU
18
4.5
Chillingtrialscoatedanduncoatedfish
4O
PU
18
4.6
Marketacceptancestatistics–initialopinions
4R
RE
20
4.7
Shelflifetrials
4P
RE
20
4.8
Collationofallretailandstoragedata
4R
RE
22
5.1
Initialconsumerviews(collectedinWP4)
analysed&collated
5D
PU
2
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
Scientific / TechnologicalQuality1
page19
Deliverab
lenu
mber
Deliverab
letitle
WPno
.Nature
Dissemination
level
Delivery
date
5.2&5.3
Optimum
conditionsforcommercialhandling,
storage&distributiondeterminedand
disseminatedtoalldistributorsandretailoutlets
stockingfishandappleproducts
5D
PU
19
5.4&5.5
Salesfiguresmonitoredforfishandapple
products
5D
PU
21
5.6
Collation&analysisofallretail&storagedata,
customerfeedbacketctoformulateproduct&
national/regionalconsumeracceptance
information
5R
RE
24
6.1
ConsortiumManagementTeam
inplaceand
financialreportingprocedures
6O
PU
1
6.2
Consortiumprocessandproceduremanual
6O
PP
2
6.3
Financialrecordingmechanismsestablished
6O
CO
2
6.4
Mid-termassessmentreport
6R
PP
12
6.5
FinalProcessreportanddocumentation
6R
PP
Projectend
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
page 20
Scientific /TechnologicalQuality1
Initial Consumer OpinionWP4
Characterisation ofFantasylene ®
WP1
Product DevelopmentWP4
Food sample - preparationWP2
Product trials - storage andhandlingWP4
Process DefinitionWP5
Pilot transportation &Packaging process
WP3
Food sample -coatingWP2
Project PERT Diagram (Fig 2)
Project
Managem
ent-WP6
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
Scientific / TechnologicalQuality1
page21
Work package number 1 Start date or starting event: Month 1
Work package title Characterisation of Fantasylene
Activity Type RTD
Participant number 1 7 9
Person-months per participant: 2 41 11
Table 1.4 c: Work package descriptionProvide a general overview of allocation of resources by partners.
ObjectivesO1.1 To fully understand the properties of the novel food coating polymer Fantasylene in all of its formsO1.2 To fully understand the interaction of the above polymer with the range of food types under
test as examples
Description of work
T1.1 Physical Characterisation of alpha and beta phases
- Examine 50 randomly produced samples and measure the proportion of alpha and beta present.
- Carry out tests on different production temperatures and subject to differential scanning andelectron microscopy to ascertain the phase transformation temperatures
- Analyse each of the distribution samples for surface properties by scanning electronmicroscopy
- Determine relationship between composition and phase distribution
T1.2 Define conditions for stability of alpha and beta phase
Select a transformation temperature and conditions in order to produce 50 samples (25 in each phase)for complete chemical, physical and structural analysis
Test 10 samples at 37deg C, over time periods of 1 hour, 12 hours, and 24 hours, 1 week, 1month and3 months
T1.3 Demonstrate the stability of the beta crystalline phase for coating foods
Define the conditions for manufacturing the beta phase with a constant composition and stability fordeveloping as a potential edible food coating
T1.4 Manufacture of Fantasylene beta phase raw material
Produce 10 x 10kg batches of the stable crystalline phase verifying each for composition and structureso that a consistent set of materials samples can be forwarded for atomisation and coatingdevelopment trials
Understand how this material performs when coated onto the test foods
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
page 22
Scientific /TechnologicalQuality1
Deliverables1.1 - Literature review – Month 2
1.2 - Provide samples and manufacture beta compound in quantities for testing – Month 10
1.3 - Food storage, handling and preparation for coating – Month 8
1.4 - Polymer characterisation and production - Month15
MilestoneM1.1: Materials Science – Month 6
ObjectivesO2.1: To supply samples of food suitable for coating with alpha Fantasylene.
O2.2: To develop and optimise a total coating process based upon early trials on electrostaticdeposition using the polymer produced in work package 1 and the food samples produced inthis work package
Description of workT2.1 - Provide food samples for test-coating
- 1kg batches of prepared food for coating
- Batches of 30 cleaned mackerel of equal size and shape with drying method instructions
- 25kg batches of Granny Smith apples of equal size, with no blemishes or bruising, bothwith and without the coatings normally applied to enhance the visual appearance. Samplesof raw apples with and without skins and also cooked apple puree
T2.2 - Coating Process
T2.2.1: Beta Fantasylene powder generation
Atomise beta Fantasylene to spherical powder particles with a size range distribution of 2-10 micronsat 2 micron intervals
Work package number 2 Start date or starting event: Month 1
Work package title Deposition Process Development
Activity Type RTD
Participant number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Person-months per participant 2 1 1 3 3 1 3 14 14
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
Scientific / TechnologicalQuality1
page23
Objectives
O3.1 Develop a system for the efficient and accurate transportation of food samples
O3.2 Develop a range of trials to determine the evaluation of food types in terms of optimumdeposition and surface treatment.
O3.3 Integrate the various aspects of this work package to produce an overall pilot process for thecoating and packaging of food stuffs under test (apples and fish).
O3.4 Carry out some very early initial labelling trials (possibly just, will a label stick to the film)
T2.2.2: Develop room temperature surface coating- Develop continually renewable enclosed atmosphere (mist) using spherical beta Fantasylene® particles from 4.1- Develop process conditions such that particles in excess of the coating thickness requiredcan be re-circulated
Deliverables2.1 Supply and prepare fish – Month 6
2.1 Supply and prepare apples – Month 6
2.3 Develop coating technology – Month 17
MilestonesM2.1 - Deposition Process technology – Month 17
Work package number 3 Start date or starting event: Month 1
Work package title Product Specific Manufacturing Technology Development :
Activity Type RTD
Participant number 1 2 3 6 7 8 9
Person-months per participant 3 2 4 1 15 20 34
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
page 24
Scientific /TechnologicalQuality1
Description of work
T3.1 Build a transportation mechanism
A fine mesh conveyor system will be modified to allow it to transport the food samples under testssuch that they will be able to receive a consistent coasting of 10 micron thickness. The food handlingmust be such that there will is no physical damage to the surface.
T3.2 Develop Surface Treatment
Submit deposition samples to ultra –violet light to convert the outer surface of the coating (which willhave been deposited in the beta form) to the alpha phase to a depth of 0.001 microns. The underlyingfood will not be damaged with respect to appearance or fitness for human consumption
T3.3 Integrate deposition, handling and conveying systems and surface treatment
T3.4 Set up deposition trials to determine the optimum process parameters for both deposition andsurface treatment and produce 50 samples of each food type for test
T3.5 Pilot Packaging Process
To integrate the full coating/packaging process for each target food category in order to assess fitnessfor purpose, reproducibility and reliability
T3.6 Labelling
Ensure that it is possible to label the external film layer with basic legal label
Deliverables3.1 Develop transportation mechanism – Month 6
3.2 Develop surface treatment – Month 8
3.3 Integrate unit processes – Month 6
3.4 Setup deposition trials – Month 3
3.5 Integrated plant operation and optimisation runs – Month 20
MilestonesM3.1 - Pilot Process defined- Month 20
M3.2 - Process manual written – Month 24
M3.3 – Understand if the food can be labelled and the mechanism – Month 21
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
Scientific / TechnologicalQuality1
page25
Description of work
T4.I Initial consumer introduction and theoretical acceptance views
T4.2 Measure dual surface coating thickness, phase, composition and durability (including stabilityfor 3 months after deposition)
T4.3 Sensory Perception tests carried out by EuOP (with the help of specialist sub-contractor)according to the European standards by trained testers (on the pilot material and pilotbatches) then the general public (on production batches only)
T4.4 Cooking trials will be carried out on the coated fish
T4.5 Chilling trials (fish samples only)
Work package number 4 Start date or starting event: Month 1
Work package title Product trials :
Activity Type DEM
Participant number 2
Person-months per participant: 10
Objectives
O4.1 To examine the likely consumer reaction at the start of the work before the scientificdevelopment is completed
O4.2 Specify the methodology optimised for the coating process of the prepared foods and foodinto process development trials (WP3)
O4.3 To test the coating conditions and to conduct consumer taste trials once the optimum hasbeen established
O4.4 To gather storage data (times and conditions) after the novel film is produced, tested andutilised for 2 example food stuffs
It may appear risky to evaluators to have only 1 partner involved, so justification should be clear in theimplementation section.
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
page 26
Scientific /TechnologicalQuality1
T4.6 Storage Trials on samples above from a taste and microbiological viewpoint
- Provide samples into the Inno Retail stores. Record consumer display and sale reactions. Thestandard PROMOTE method will be used to assess the new product. Euro Opi will also be heavilyinvolved bringing their experience of dealing with public perception of arrange of scientificinnovations to bear and will work closely with Inno-Retail and Tasty Testers.
- The changes chilling temperatures and times for the coated fish compared to the uncoated will betested using standard microbiological storage profiles s well as water content and measure ofexternal appearance.
T4.7: Shelf life trials
Batches will be analyses chemically, microbiologically and by appearance after 1,2,5,10,15 and 30days to see the effect of deterioration and produce recommended use by/best before indicators
T4.8 Collate storage results for each exemplar food group
For clarity the summated results will be scored on a scale of 10-15 where the mid point represents theuntreated control. Hence a score of say 13 is a considerable improvement over the control but a scoreof 6 is a slight decreases in quality over the control, as compared with conventional treatment/packaging.
All materials for trails will be prepared in consistent manner by TT
All data will be audited and validated by EuOP to ensure accuracy and lack of bias and to confirm thecomplete audit trial
Deliverables4.1 Initial consumer views – Month 2
4.2 Examine food surface properties, initial and coated – Month18
4.3 Cooking trials uncoated /coated fish – Month 12
4.4 Chilling trials coated /uncoated apples – Month 18
4.6 Market acceptance statistics - initial opinions
4.7 Shelf life trials – Month 20
4.8 Collation of all retail and storage data – Month 22
MilestonesM4.1 - Initial consumer interaction – Month 3
M4.2 - Optimal Storage time/conditions identified
M4.3 - Optimum domestic storage preparation determined
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
Scientific / TechnologicalQuality1
page27
Work package number 5 Start date or starting event: Month 1
Work package title Consumer acceptance / Dissemination activities :
Activity Type DEM
Participant number 1 2 3 4 5 6
Person-months per participant: 6 2 8 2 2 5
Objectives
O5.1 To collate consumer reaction at the start of the work before the scientific development and toretest after the material has been optimised
O5.2 Specify the methodology optimised for large scale distribution and handling of the preparedfoods
O5.3 To conduct consumer taste trials once the optimum product has been established
O5.4 To monitor sales and consumer feedback for each product and to collate any consumerconcerns / complaints
O5.5 To monitor and note any national or product specific differences in acceptance
Description of work
T5.I Initial consumer introduction and theoretical acceptance views collated and compared toretest views
T5.2 Detailed commercial distribution, storage and handling methodology and conditionsdetermined for range of coated fresh fish products
T5.3 Detailed commercial distribution, storage and handling methodology determined for range ofapple products
T5.4 Sales figures monitored for fish products
T5.6 Sales figures monitored for apple products
T5.7 All customer feedback collated including final sales figures, customer complaints anddetermine if any regional /national differences
All data will be audited and validated by EuOP to ensure accuracy and lack of bias and to confirm thecomplete audit trial
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
page 28
Scientific /TechnologicalQuality1
Deliverables5.1 Initial consumer views (Collected in WP 4) analysed and collated – Month 2
5.2 Optimum conditions for commercial handling, storage and distribution determined anddisseminated to all distributors and retail outlets stocking fish products – Month 19
5.3 Optimum conditions for commercial handling, storage and distribution determined anddisseminated to all distributors and retail outlets stocking apple products – Month 19
5.4 Sales figures monitored for fish products – Month 21
5.5 Sales figures monitored for apple products – Month 21
5.6 Collation and analysis of all retail and storage data customer feedback etc to formulateproduct and national /regional consumer acceptance information – Month 24
MilestonesM5.1 - Initial consumer interaction analysis – Month 3
M5.2 - Optimum commercial handling storage specified
M5.3 - Coated fish/apple product sales figures analysed.
M5.4 - Final analysis of consumer acceptance and commercial cost effectiveness of edible coating onfish and apple products
Work package number 6 Start date or starting event: Month 1
Work package title Project management and coordination:
Activity Type RTD
Participant number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Person-months per participant 8 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Objectives
O6.1 Co-ordinate and manage the consortium, over and above the technical management of WPs.
O6.2 Create a management framework, maintain overall consortium communication and act as thecommunication channel for all dialogue with the Commission
O6.3 Establish an effective project management structure incorporating the management teamsdetailed in Section 2.1.
O6.4 Establish and implement project activity plans and reporting structures.
O6.5 Establish the Advisory Board, including definition of roles and membership.
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
Scientific / TechnologicalQuality1
page29
O6.6 Set up and manage financial accounting records and reporting mechanisms including thewebsite that incorporates the Edipac Advisory Notification System (EANS)
O6.7 Assess and mitigate any potential or identified risks to the project.
O6.8 Conduct mid-term assessment and final review.
Description of work
Task 6.1: Co-ordination & Consortium Activities
• Undertake co-ordination activities for the project as a whole, including all outputs from theindividual work packages and technical activities, enabling full project reporting of deliverablesand milestones to be compiled.
• Co-ordinate all knowledge management, dissemination activities (implement the disseminationand exploitation plan described in section 3.2) and Intellectual Property Rights issues.
• Implement equal opportunities throughout the project, together with ethical and societal issues
• Oversee progress on training and dissemination.
• Manage and co-ordinate all issues with respect to the Consortium Agreement and contractualobligations. This will include overall legal, administrative and Consortium Agreementmaintenance requirements.
• Establish and oversee the consortium management team, administrative requirements,supporting technology and management tools.
• Establish operation procedures for management activities.
• Undertake co-ordination activities including communication with the consortium and EU.
• Establish processes and procedures for ongoing monitoring with WP leaders.
• Gather information, conduct progress reviews and integrate information from project tasks viathe WP leaders to compile periodic progress reports.
Task 6.2: Task Management
• Ensure that the project management structure detailed in section 2.1 is fully implemented.
• Establish task and activity lists, deliverables and milestones for all project members andimplement monitoring activities to ensure the project is delivered as planned.
• Implement reporting structures in terms of communication, decision making, disputeresolution and reporting requirements including those to the Consortium Steering Groupmanagement team.
• Constant monitoring and communication to ensure any necessary changes to the project planare managed correctly.
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
page 30
Scientific /TechnologicalQuality1
Task 6.3: Financial Management
• Set up and manage all financial records and mechanisms to ensure comprehensive audit trailsexist for all project spending and fund management activities.
• Provide outputs to the Consortium Steering Group management team for inclusion incommunications to the Commission.
• Ensure all project consortium members maintain and retain the required financial records andprovide supporting documentation on project spend as required.
Task 6.4: Mid-Term review and final review
• Gather information from other project management tasks.
• Conduct progress reviews and integrate the information within the mid-term assessment forthe second half of the project.
• Coordinate the exploitation strategy.
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
Scientific / TechnologicalQuality1
page31
Table1.4d:Sum
maryofstaffeffort
Participan
t&
shortna
me
Part1:
PFF
M(SME)
Part2:
TT
(SME)
Part3:
EuO
P(SME)
Part4:
LeVe
r(SME)
Part5:
PisC
(SME)
Part6:
Inn-R
(SME)
Part7:
NUN
(RTD)
Part8:
IPT
(RTD)
Part9:
ITA
(RTD)
Total
SMEs
Total
RTDP
Total
Other
TOTA
LAll
Partners
Researchand
innovation
activities-total
WP1
241
112
5254
WP2
21
13
31
314
1411
3142
WP3
32
41
1520
3410
6979
Demonstration
activities-total
WP4
010
00
00
1010
WP5
62
82
25
2525
Management
Activities-
total
WP6
82
11
11
11
114
17
2117
146
68
6035
60227
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
page 32
Scientific /TechnologicalQuality1
Table 1.4e: List of milestones
Milestonenumber
MilestoneDescription
Workpackage(s)involved
ExpectedDate
Means of Verification
M1.1 Initial consumerinteraction
4 Month 3 Tools developed for testing. Publicviews obtained at start
M1.2 Materials Science 1 Month 6 Ability to manufacture batches of 25kgas required
M2.1 Deposition Processtechnology
2 Month 17 Samples coated effectively to desiredspecification as required for each foodtype
M3.1 Pilot Process 3 Month 20 Plant up and running. Consistentsamples available for consumertesting.
M3.2 Process manual 3 Month 24 Manual available (draft) and costingscalculated
M4.1 Product trials ;preparation;domestic storage
4 Month 20 Consumer tests delivered
M 5.1 Consumeracceptance
5 Month 22
M6.1 Management/financial tools setup
6 Month 2 Consortium working effectively; allpartners delivering at date. Scheduledmeetings held and run effectively.
M6.2 Mid term report Month 13 Report on progress and any problems
M6.3 Final report 5 Month 25 All Commission communicationsdelivered effectively according todeadlines
Milestones are control points where decisions are needed with regard to the next stage of the project. For example,a milestone may occur when a major result has been achieved, if that achievement must be reached for the nextphase of work to commence. Another example of a milestone is a point when the consortium must decide which ofseveral possible technologies to adopt for further development
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
Implementation2
page33
Implementation22.1 Quality of the consortium as a whole
2.1.1 Description of project management structure and procedures
The project is structured to develop the coating material and test it against 2 foodstuffs as described.The reaction from consumers and feedback from them is a key feature so that the consumeracceptance of the technology goes hand in hand with the technical activities. In this way, there is nodanger that the technology would be developed but not adopted commercially. Les Vergers andPisciCatch are expert SMEs that are familiar with fruits and vegetables and with fish respectively.
In order to scale up, standardise and define the conditions for large scale manufacture the technologymust be robust, repeatable, and economic IPT and ITA are 2 RTD performers who are experienced attaking novel innovation from the food manufacturing process and developing standard ‘production line’methodologies; working alongside the research base and commercial manufacturers. IPT have a wideexperience of development of manufacturing processes for a range of food manufacturing applications- including integration and process control. They frequently work with ITA who are equipmentmanufacturers with special expertise in the design of food grade machinery for hygienic operation andCleaning in Place (CIP) of that equipment.
• Management Structure. Techniques and Communication Strategy
The consortium will be run by PFFM in a similar way to a commercial undertaking with a managementstructure as illustrated in Fig 3
The 2011 Work Programme strongly encourages applicants to form small consortia which fit the purpose of theproposed project. The size of the consortium should typically be 5, but generally not exceeding 10 participants.The organisational structure must reflect the needs of the SME - and you must demonstrate their position in the‘driving seat’of the project.In justifying the consortium members a useful analogy is the selection of a football team. Members are required toadopt individual positional requirements in order to optimise efficiency and ensure success. But a team entirelymade up of goalkeepers would be unsuitable!!
You should present the profile of each consortium member specifying name/size/range of businessactivities/contractual role in project/degree of involvement and qualifications for this role.
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
page 34
Implementation2Figure3-
Man
agem
entOrgan
isationCha
rt
Man
agem
ent
Bo
ard
Co
ord
inat
or
-P
FF
M
EuO
PT
T
IPT
NU
NIT
A
Pis
CLe
Ver
Inn-
R
RT
DP
erfo
rmer
s
SMEs
Ste
erin
gC
om
mit
tee
Ad
viso
ryG
roup
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
Implementation2
page35
The Managing Director of PFFM will act as ‘chairman’ of the managementboard. Its responsibility will be to ensure that the correct procedures arecarried out and all deadlines and obligations are met. Seeking consensus onproject steering, and, in the case of dispute, decisions will be taken bymajority vote with the SME’s and the main research provider each having 3votes, and the research sub-contractors having 1 vote. Further arrangements(representation, delegation and quorum, deputy project co-ordination etc) willbe defined in the consortium agreement that will be signed by all partners andcontractors at the start of the project.
The project co-ordinator will be responsible for the execution of the workprogramme, communication with the EC, technical and commercial reporting,delegation of work packages, motivation of the team, encouragement ofcreativity, correct problem-solving procedures and corrective actions.
The project co-ordinator will be John Bigg of Passive Food FilmManufacturing. He has a chemistry degree and has worked in the area ofpolymeric materials for 5 years before joining the food manufacturing sectorand working on food packaging technologies. Following this experience hecompleted a MBA and becoming a senior project manager for a plasticsmanufacturing company, a position that he held for 4 years. Whilst in the foodindustry he was responsible for setting up a teaching company scheme with aLondon University and the setting up of a small in-house testing facility ATeaching Company Scheme (TCS). PFFM will also provide all the necessaryadministrative and secretarial support for the project as well as projectmanagement software. The other key SME’s involved include consumer-facing organisation Euro Opi they will ensure the active dissemination of theresults of the work across all participating countries.
Task leaders will be designated for materials science, deposition technology,to represent the food manufacturers/processors and to co-ordinate the retailproduct outlet. Euro Opi and Inno-Retail will together appoint an ExploitationManager. Task groups will meet regularly under the chairmanship of the TaskLeaders. There is a need for totally independent expertise in dealing withpublic perception of Scientific Innovation and therefore a role is included forthem. EuOP have been involved in high profile issues such as stem cells,genetic modification and nuclear power. This will ensure that the concept ofthe science itself, as well as the product applications, are communicated tothe general public and their acceptability will be tested fairly andindependently. There is a need for a food expert in a way that parallels thosemethods that might be used in the home. Tasty Testers are a SME that workswith the food industry on new product
Ensure theorganisationalstructures anddecision-makingmechanisms aredirectly related tothe complexity of theproject and therequiredintegration. Link theproject managementwith potential of theproject to reach itsgoalsThe decision-making mechanismsmust be outlinedand tailored to thescale of the projectwith distinctresponsibilities forboth strategic anddaily operationalmatters definedThe establishment ofsteering committeesand advisory boardsis worthconsideration, butthey should beappropriate and notoverly complex.
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
page 36
Implementation2
You must demonstratethat the co-ordinatoris experienced andqualified for thecomplex managementtask. Do notunderestimate the roleof management whichcan account for up to6% of project costsand personnel time.Remember to includedetails of thecommunication plan.An SME that hasnever participated in aFramework project isunlikely to have theexperience to act in aco-ordination role.
development (NPD) and is very experienced in developing recommendationsfor preparation as well as preparation of standard samples for consumer tastetrials.
An interactive IT based internal communication platform will be launched atthe inaugural meeting (hosted by the Co-ordinators) this will be the mainvehicle for communication and discussion outside of the regular consortiummeetings. It will allow interactive amendment to documentation, discussion ofresults and will be structured to permit monitoring of progress of each workpackage.
There will be quick links to associated EU programmes and to specialist foodmanufacturing, packaging and consumer facing sites in each Member State.
• Monitoring and progress reporting
The co-ordinator will visit partner and research locations. A brief summarymonthly report from each work package leader to the co-ordinator (using anagreed template) will describe achievements (deliverables) and correctiveactions. Formal 6 monthly reporting to the EC will be the responsibility of theco-ordinator. Project management software will be used and all reports madeavailable to partners on the platform or on diskette. A project web-site will bedeveloped within 4 weeks of the start of the project; this will have an openaccess interface as well as notice boards for consortium members.
• Preparatory measures for exploitation of results
John Moneypenny, who is the Exploitation Manager, will be responsible forupdating the exploitation plan and organising the protection of IPR. This willbe kept under regular review at the formal meetings as the work proceeds.
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
Implementation2
page37
Organisation Type Country Business Activity Role in Project
Passive FoodFilmsManufacturing(PFFM)
SME UK SME manufacturer of foodcoatings and packaging.Participant in 3 former EUFP 5 and FP 6 projects
Overall co-ordinator;packaging materialmanufacturer
Tasty Testers (TT) SME Italy SME expert in foodpreparation for NewProduct developmentincluding consumerinterface
Coordination ofmarketing andconsumer trials duringexperimentaldevelopment stage.Optimisation ofcooking methods forcoated foods.
Euro Opi (EuOP) SME Germany Opinion former andgatherer
Non- governmentalorganisation
Les Vergers (LeVer) SME France Supplier of fruits andvegetables
Food Supplier andproduce storage expert
PisciCatch (PisC) SME Turkey Supplier of fish and fishproducts
Fish supplier,preparation, freezing,storage etc
Inno-Retail (Inn-R) SME Slovakia Food sales andDistribution
Innovative Retail chain
National Universityof Netherlands(NUN)
RTDPerformer
Holland Teaching and research Developer of materialsscience
IPT RTDPerformer
Germany Product engineeringresearch and processing
Developer integratedthin film coatingprocessing line
ITA RTDPerformer
Poland Food Processing andPackaging equipmentmanufacturer
Development and scaleup of deposition andgeneral foodprocessing equipment.Whole processoperation and cleaning.Hygienic equipmentdesign
2.1.2 Description of the consortium
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
page 38
Implementation2
Passive Food Film Manufacturing PFFM (1) is a European SME with its HQin the UK and offices in Brussels and Germany... It has 25 staff in the UK andanother 10 who are based around the EU. PFFM has been active in theEuropean research arena for the past 15 years and has extensive experienceof both participating in and coordinating large scale Trans-European R & Dprojects. It is strong on dissemination activities, allowing it to share anddevelop ideas collectively. It is also very experienced in ensuring that it is fullybriefed on legislation that is pertinent to its activity, such as the EU safepackaging exempted materials listing and the various disposal directives. Inorder to deliver on this it has a strong legal team and is in regular contact withlegislators and regulatory bodies in the EC and across member states.
Tasty Testers (TT) (2) is a SME that works as a contractor for foodmanufacturers and distributors based in Italy, and have 135 employees. Itrepresents a bridge between the manufacturers and commercial foodprocessing, and the consumer who will prepare and cook the food, by definingoptimum cooking regimes for labels. It works closely with the social sciencestaff at Milan University who are developing academic models for optimisingthe understanding of new innovations across the food chain, it also conductspractical consumer panels and testing as well as opinion surveys by a numberof different techniques and feeds the results to its commercial clients who usethe data to make commercial decisions regarding supply in their outlets. TheSME is about to expand into the Nordic countries and thus the potentialmarket for the edible packaging being developed in this project could beextended following consumer trials here (Specially relevant for fish packing).
Euro-Opi (EuOP) (3) is the consumer organisation in the consortium; itrepresents the leading opinion - forming organisations across Europe;together they have huge media coverage and are respected for givingconsumers an independent view of new innovations. The total trans-Europeanmembership of these organisations exceeds 2 million consumers, they have39 staff in the German HQ of Euro-Opi and approximately another 44scattered across the other member states. They work with many localUniversities and have large numbers of trained individuals who can be calledupon on a casual basis to conduct specialist taste trials; they also haveexperience of recruiting and conducting random consumer trials.
(Keep to maximum 3pages plus ½ page perpartner)
Ensure that youexplain how allparticipants and end-users are well suitedand are committed tothe tasks assigned tothem and also in aposition to exploit theresults.
When describing theconsortium, rememberthe complementarybalance of the entireconsortium as well asdescribing individualmembers.
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
Implementation2
page39
Les Vergers (LeVer) (4) is a French SME with 35 employees, it is a wholesalesupplier of fruit and vegetables into France and for export. It is interested inprotective, non-intrusive packaging to improve the product life-cycle but hasno R&D facilities. It will benefit from reduced packaging volume and enhancedproduct life. Its role is to provide prepared samples prior to coating and testingtreated products
PisciCatch (PisC) (5) is a Portuguese SME with 87 employees, whichprocesses and distributes fish to retail outlets in Portugal, Spain and Franceusing refrigeration, freezing and canning. It wishes to extend its market shareby extending into fresh fish markets. They will be responsible for selection andprovision of prepared samples for coating trials and for their subsequentconsumer testing
Inno-Retail (Inn-R) (6) owns a small group of mini-markets in various regionsof Slovakia. It has the equivalent of 52 full time employees concerned withdistribution and retail sales of food stuffs to the tourist trade in coastal holidayresorts and will provide ideal data sets of acceptance in a market-placeaccessed by tourists of a number of nationalities and tastes. Inno-Retail isrenowned for its innovative new product range and has been amongst the firstchain to introduce other product innovations, such as phyto-sterols. Ediblepackaged food will give it a lead over the major supermarket chains and willbe able to command a price premium due to expected additional storage life.
National University of the Netherlands (NUN - 7) is a large prestigiousUniversity in the Netherlands. It has a world-class chemistry department,within which there is large European-leading research teams who are expertsin material science and have previously led a large EU material coatconsortium. This work will have Professor Strongfellow follow as co-ordinator;he will ensure that the staff engaged will have time and facilities to deliver onthis project. Prof Strongfellow’s team will consist of 3 experts in engineeringand manufacturing as well as equipment design as well as up to 7 techniciansupport staff- one of whom will be designated chief technician for the project.
RTD performers
Explain clearly whythe RTD performers,all of whom must havea high degree ofscientific excellenceand complement eachother, were selected tocarry out the work anddescribe thecompetence of theprincipal researchpersonnel.
The SME must have aclear strategic orcommercial interest inachieving results tobenefit theirbusinesses.
It is always advisableto seek research sub-contractors whoalready have thedurable equipmentrequired by the project
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
page 40
Implementation2
IPT (8) is a German product engineering company; that is focused on the development and depositionof integrated food production lines. They have been established for over 20 years and are continuallyworking on new deposition techniques for novel materials developed by partner Universities. Many ofthe coating they use in the lines are destined for coating foods and drugs. The technologies that theyuse include spray coating and plastic moulding/deposition. They will assist the University in applicationof the film top the foods (dealing with possible irregular shapes/ensuring material covers food with aregular/homogeneous thickness etc and will develop and define the process including the control steps
ITA (9) is a Polish Engineering company that manufactures a range of food processing and packagingequipment and has expertise in hygienic design and cleaning of food manufacturing lines. They are arespected company, favoured by many European retailers for the design and robust operation of theirequipment and have been established for 50 years and currently employ 350 staff. Their expertiseextends to producing equipment that will operate under sterile / near sterile conditions. Each piece ofequipment they produce includes specific protocols for dismantling and in-line cleaning schedules.They have previously worked with IPT in developing equipment that can deliver specific coatingdevelopments discovered and they will work with the partners to ensure that the equipment developedcan be operated safely and reliably.
They have previous experience of working with EU funded consortia
2.2 Justification of resources (max 4 pages)You must ensure a coherent integration of finance. Resource (personnel and others), work plan and partnershipfrom a global point if view.Ensure that the cost breakdown is well structured and corresponds to the activities to be implemented by eachpartner.Show how the SME will provide the resources to execute and exploit the project findingsThe purchase of durable equipment including computing and other facilities is not recommended unless absolutelyessential. It can cause problems of ownership and can only be financed in part by the Commission using a formulabased upon amortisation and utilisation.Demonstrate clearly how the consortium intends to distribute the EC contribution among all partners and how theEC contribution to other enterprises and end-users will be used by the consortium. Demonstrate adequateresources for the SME to exploit the findings after the project is completed. IF any sub-contractors other than RTDperformers are used, justify this. Also if any intended partner is outside the EU but is not an Associate Country norare they on the list of ‘International Co-operation Partner Countries’explain why their funding would be essentialin terms of the project objectives.
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
Implementation2
The total costs for this project are estimated at 1.630.800 euro, differentiatedinto the following cost categories:
The total value of the EC-contribution is calculated at 1,268,250 euro.
The table below gives an overview of the person months that will be spent bythe different project partners for the different activities research,demonstration, management and other activities like training anddissemination.
The RTD-performers perform the major part of the R&D, demonstration andtraining activities. The SMEs will provide the necessary food products and testthe packaging. The dissemination of the knowledge will specifically bearranged by Euro-Opi and Inno-Retail. There will be a constant interactionbetween the SMEs and the RTD-performers.
It would appear that the demonstration activities are low but they are, in fact,supplemented by strong consumer-facing inputs that are describedseparately.
The non-labour costs consist of travel expenses and costs of equipmentand materials.
Project summary
Own Subcontracting toRTD - performers
Sub total % oftotal
RTD 138,200 1,112,000 1,250,200 77
Demonstration 100,000 6
Management 112,700 7
Other 167,900 10
Link WP descriptions /summary staff effortand costs tying bothtogether: both internalSME and contractinvoice distribution ofcosts.
Include for each task,the list of deliverableitems, indicating type,content, and timing,including, for example,software codes,experimental results,laboratorydemonstrations,prototype products etc.A deliverable is theoutput or end productfrom a task or series oftasksA milestone is a stagein the project where adecision can be madeon the status of theproject or the quantityof the achievements
Total project costs: 1,630,800
Total costs for RTD: 1,250,200
Total costs for demonstration: 100,000
Total costs for management 112,700
Total costs for other activities 167,900
Total value EC-contribution: 1,268,250
Total subcontracting to RTD-performers: 1,112,000
Max. EC-contribution (110% subcontract) 1,223,200
Funding rate: 75%
page 42
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
page 42
Implementation2EXAMPLE
Table2.2a
Estim
ated
Cost
Break
downforthe–EDIBLE
FOODPA
CKAGINGPROJE
CT
Thisisaduplicatetableprovidedtodemonstratehowthefinalfiguresarecalculated.Theactualsubmissionrequirementisasspecifiedin
theCommissionguidelinesandgivenbelowastable2.2
Themaximum
EC-contributionis1,223,200(110%ofthesubcontractedR&D)
RTDac
tivities
Dem
ons
tration
Man
agem
ent
Other
activities
Totals
Own
Sub
con
ECco
ntr’n
Own
Sub
con
EC-contr.
Costs
EC-
contr’n
Costs
EC-
contr.
Costs
EC-contr’n
(1)PFFM
42,000
778.000
615.000
50.000
50.000
40.000
40.000
910.000
705.000
(2)TT
17,400
13.050
100.000
50.000
13.600
13.600
15.000
15.000
146.000
91.650
(3)EuOp
31,500
23.625
7.000
7.000
50.400
50.400
88.900
81.025
(4)LeVer
18,600
167.000
139.200
6.800
6.800
16.000
16.000
208.400
162.000
(5)PiscC
17,700
167.000
138.525
6.500
6.500
15.000
15.000
206.200
160.025
(6)Inn-R
11,000
8.250
6.300
6.300
31.500
31.500
48.800
46.050
(7)NUN
7.200
7.200
7.200
7.200
(8)IPT
10.500
10.500
10.500
10.500
(9)ITA
4.800
4.800
4.800
4.800
Total
138,200
1,112,000
937,650
100,00050,000
112,700
112,700
167,900
167,900
1,630,800
1,268,250
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
Implementation2
Distribution of the EC-contribution
The EC-contribution will be allocated to the different partners. TT will beremunerated for their consumer survey activity
EC-contribution (max) 1.223.200
Remuneration to RTD-performers 1.112.000
Remuneration to TT 100.000
Remaining EC- contribution 11.200
The remaining contribution will be distributed according to the share of thepartners in the costs of own RTD-activities (138,200), management (112,700)and other activities (167.900); total own costs (418,800)
Subcontracting
No significant subcontracting costs are foreseen in this project
Other countries
No ICPC partners are involved in this project
Indicative breakdown of the offer from RTD-performers
The following table gives a breakdown from the offer from the RTD-performersto the SME’s and is all that is actually required by the Commission.(othertables here are included to indicate to you how to calculate the final figures forTable 2.2
Own costs (€) EC contribution (€) Own contribution (€)(1) PFFM 132,000 3,420 128,580
(2) TT 46,000 1,240 44,760
(3) EuOP 88,900 2,400 86,500
(4) LeVer 41,400 1,120 40,280
(5) PisC 39,200 1,060 38,140
(6) Inn-R 48,800 1,320 47,480
(7) NUN 7,200 210 6,990
(8) IPT 10,500 290 10,210
(9) ITA 4,800 140 4,660
418,800 11,200 407,600
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
page 44
Implementation2Table2.2
Indicativebreak
downoftheoffer
from
theRTDperform
ers
totheSMEparticipan
ts:
Thisisanessentialtable.
Nam
eofRTD
Perform
erNo.o
fPerso
n-months
Perso
nnel
Costs
Durab
leeq
uipmen
tCon
sumab
les
Computing
Overhea
dCosts
Other
Costs
Totalb
yRTD
Project
Results
Work
pac
kageNo
7.NUN
60354,000
10,000
6,700
70,800
441,500
1.2;1.4;
2.3;3.3;
3.5,
1,2,3
8.IPT
35255,000
2,000
114,700
371,700
2.3;3.1;
3.2;3.3;
3.5
2,3
9.ITA
60236,000
10,000
3,000
49,800
298,800
1.4;2.3;
3.1;3.5
1,2,3
Total
rece
ipts
845,000
20,000
11,700
235,300
1,112,000
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
Impact3
page45
Impact: The potential impact throughthe development, dissemination anduseof project results3
3.1 Contribution at the European [and/or international] level to the expected impacts listed in thework programme under the relevant activity
Summary
For the SME members in the EDIPAC consortium, there are clear and demonstrable benefits to be gainedfrom the successful implementation of the successfully developed technology. These benefits will accrue tofood producers and retailers, and firms within the food packaging sector; all these benefits will be passedon to consumers who will gain access to healthier foodstuffs and an improved perception of the foodpackaging industry. In addition, there will be environmental benefits relating to less waste material andhence, improved environmental sustainability. The overall impact of this will be to place SMEs within theEuropean food industry in a highly competitive position in both the European and international marketsthereby creating and protecting jobs, increasing revenues to allow further investment and technologicaldevelopments, while, at the same time, improving the health of citizens.
The impacts will be evidenced widely, food producers will profit from manufacturing higher quality, added-value products, retailers will benefit from lower refrigeration costs, ease of handling and improved productsafety, and the consumer will benefit from a safe product in an edible package with no waste plastic fordisposal. All of these benefits are improvements over conventional plastic food films.
The ability to store and display food at ambient temperatures combined with longer storage times willgenerate economic savings for food retailers by reducing the need for regular stocking, reducing the capitalplant and energy costs of refrigeration and, also, the associated ‘food miles’ hence reducing the carbonfootprints associated with transportation costs.
The proposed project will concentrate on two specific food types: fruit and fish. The successfuldemonstration of the new technology for these products will open the way for its application to other typesof food which will require further development work before they are marketed to take into account thevariable perishability of different types of food. Finally, the uptake for any new product is always gradualand the impact will increase with consumption; one of the key project roles of the PFFM and Euro Opi is toinform and educate consumers in order to maximise the speed of uptake and market penetration
The maximum length for section 3 should be 10 Pages excluding tables
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
page 46
Impact3
• 3.1.1 Economic Impact for SME’s
The proposed research is pre-competitive. It will only apply to a limited range offoods on a pilot plant scale and further demonstration will be necessary to provethe techno-economics and to further broaden acceptance by consumers acrossadditional food types. It is intended that, once the project is completed, theSMEs will continue to drive exploitation of the project deliverables by continuingthe programme of demonstration to other manufacturing companies and alsopromote the benefits to the general public. It is envisaged that edible packagedproducts will be introduced progressively, starting within 12-18 months followingthe completion of the project. The degree and rate of expansion will depend onthe economies of scale in Fantasylene production, pricing policies (subsidiesavailable etc) and consumer acceptance. It is recognised that it will be necessaryto obtain approval from the relevant regulatory authorities under the Novel Foodand Processing Regulations and a dossier will be presented to a competentauthority and then submitted to the European Food Standards Agency (EFSA) forregulatory clearance. This process takes an average of 3 months fromcompletion of the submission to notification of the outcome. Given the detailedinformation gained during the project on the properties of Fantasylene and itsinteraction with the test foods, it is considered that there is unlikely to be aregulatory problem.
Market size
An Economic Impact Assessment has been carried out to estimate the potentialsize of the market; the results are presented below in Table 3.1.1. This analysishas been performed on the basis of potential direct economic benefits to theSMEs. The benefits have been quantified in terms of:
• For food producers, the added-value of packaged food products that willreduce retail storage costs and command premium prices
• For food packaging companies, increases in the market for their services
• For the SME’s, licensing income
Give the estimatedtime to market/adoption and indicateany further technicaldevelopments ordemonstrationactivities requiredafter the completion ofthe research project.
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
Impact3
page47
The uptake of the developed Fantasylene technology will be controlled by:
(a) the rate of technology validation,
(b) the uptake by other food product producers
(c) the cost of Fantasylene which will be affected by economies of scale.
The initial price will be of the order of 30 Euro per kg but, as demand increases, is expected to follow astandard price/volume curve. The additional cost of Fantasylene film per unit of coated product will besmall, based on a likely price of less than 1€/m2 and this will be offset by savings that will accrue tocompanies throughout the supply chain from:
• lower transportation costs due to reduced weight and volume of packaging materials
• reductions of 25% in refrigeration costs; these are not insignificant and have been estimated by the FPAto be as much as €1 million per annum per °C reduction in temperature for a single large chain of stores• increased shelf life of perishable foods resulting in lower wastage
• virtual elimination of packaging disposal costs – currently estimated to cost the food manufacturingcommunity some €1.2 million per annumThe net result of this will be low on-costs and enhanced consumer demand thereby justifying thedescription of Fantasylene as a high added-value product.
EC 000’s OUTSIDE EC TOTAL
Tonne Euro Tonne Euro Tonne Euro
AlphaFantasylene
550 13,750 150 3,750 700 175,000
Beta Fantasylene 1000 25000 750 18,750 1,750 43,750
Apples 100 75,000 1,000 7,500,000 100,10 7,507,500
Fish 200 160,000 20,000 16,000,000 20,200 16,160,000
Fig 1 Market Size Statistics Summary
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
page 48
Impact3
Market share
A market analysis by the National University of the Netherlands of ProductMarketing has used the project SMEs as representative models of the wider foodindustry and has shown that:
a) Piscicatch (Participant 5) and Les Vergers (Participant 4) will gain an increase inturnover of the order of 5% over two years and make additional savings resultingfrom the improvement in food shelf life and decrease in waste disposal charges.
b) SMEs that provide food packaging services can expect to increase theirmarket share from 1.2% to 3% in two years from commercial exploitation, basedupon customer choices and retailer benefit of sales per shelf area
3.1.2 Effect on Competitiveness on SMEs
The food-oriented SME proposers of the EDIPAC project have recognised theopportunities that the successful introduction of a Fantasylene food packagingsystem will give other SMEs. They are also very aware of the wider need towin consumer confidence in their product but have not had the resources orknow–how to do this directly. Therefore their partnership with the publicrelations SME organisation, Euro OP,(participant 3) will bring credibility in theconducting of consumer opinions and will be pivotal in shaping the consumerview following clear and concise explanations of the properties of the materialand its considerable environmental and food safety advantages.
The proposed research and manufacturing development will put the plans forthe expansion of the European food production sector back on track andenable a massive extension to the plan in terms of increasing domestic salesand gaining export opportunities.
The food manufacturing/processing SMEs have been very concerned abouttheir falling profit margins (now less than 5% from 8.75% 3 years ago).Toensure continued viability, serious consideration has been given to sector-wide cost-cutting campaigns looking at reducing labour and material costs.However, replacing their current packaging systems would improve profitmargins and it is estimated that the use of Fantasylene would increase theirmargins, at present sales volumes, to 11%. In this context edible plasticsprovide a useful marketing tool. The INN-R (participant 6) is regularly lookingat ways to make food retail products more visually attractive and to extendshelf life but is aware of the reservations of ‘green’ customers who areconcerned about previously claimed toxicity effects from conventionalwrapping plastics caused by migration into food products. The positiveaspects that non-toxic Fantasylene will keep products fresh, enhance their
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
Impact3
page49
appearance and be welcomed for its sustainability footprint will, therefore,increase the public demand for such foods at the expense of products fromoverseas that will lag behind the adoption of the technology.
3.1.3 Economic Justification of the Research
The market impact estimates presented in Table 3.1.1 show that the totalinvestment of 2.035.200 euro in the EDIPAC project will be recovered in one yearafter project completion. Commercial exploitation will be implemented via anumber of routes:
- Improvement of profits from food product sales by themanufacturers/processors
- Cost savings for food retailers
- Income from providing the Fantasylene coating service
- Royalties from the sales of coating and handling equipment
- Fees and royalties from licensing the technology to other food processors
Overall, a return of 80 million euro is predicted within 5 years, giving aninvestment ratio of approximately 40:1. The main beneficiaries of this increase inbusiness volume will be the SMEs who can anticipate consequential increases inemployment levels of several hundred persons over the period; a greater impactwill be achieved as the new technology across the rest of the European foodindustry.
Development and dissemination of codes of best practice and standards
A detailed quality manual will be produced to cover the edible packagingprocess which will enable the dissemination of best practice in Quality Assurancefor all organisations involved in the uptake of the new technology. Process andproduct data will be made freely available to the European Food StandardsAgency (EFSA) for use in preparation of standards on food quality and safety.
Further technical developments
Following the transfer of the technology to a range of other food types, thetechnology would potentially be attractive to manufacturers of other productswhere sensory properties and their transfer are important e.g. householdcleaners, soaps, perfumes etc. Further work would also be required toinvestigate innovative labelling methodologies for use with this novel packagingmaterial (this is outside the scope of the proposed project).
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
page 50
Impact3
3.1.4 Contribution Towards Community Societal Objectives
European Dimension
Any change that has a positive impact on food quality is of relevance to allEuropean Government agencies and companies involved in the food sector.The negative social and environmental effects of packaging materials on foodquality, as well as recycling and disposal issues, continue to present technicalchallenges to scientists whilst, economically, it is recognised that reducingpackaging costs and volumes would make European products morecompetitive in the global market. In addition, the development of thistechnology as applied to healthy food choices will encourage consumption ofhealthy dietary choices and make a contribution to the healthy living agenda.Increases in the storage lives of products (as measured by ‘best before’ or‘sell by’ dates), without adverse effects on nutritional quality, arising from theimplementation of edible packaging will also have a positive effect on qualityof life of consumers. The trial foods have been selected deliberately since theycarry the healthy eating message and would contribute to initiatives such asthe UK’s ‘5 a day’ message.
Thus, the successful conclusion of the EDIPAC project would have positiveeffects on a range of Community societal objectives including improved health& safety of citizens, increased employment with better working conditions,and reduced environmental impacts
Contribution to Standards
Success with the project would contribute to the EC Packaging & PackagingWaste Directive (94/62/EC) which came into force in 1994 and has beenconsiderably updated (EC 1935/2004) and strengthened. Edible packaging willreduce the waste burden and the polymer Fantasylene has been shown to berecyclable with a 90% yield. The product has previously been cleared forsafety but will still need to be considered by SCFTS (the Standing Committeeof Food Toxicology & Safety in the food chain), the latter being an organisationto which the Project Co-ordinator acts as an advisor.
3.1.5 Trans-national Approach
Impact of working at European level
The expertise available in specialist research centres from several MemberStates will be necessary for the resolution of the problem within the requiredtimescale. Variations in the origins of European foods, packaging anddistribution centre procedures as well as the variety of tastes throughout theCommunity need to be taken into consideration to come to an acceptable
Explain why theproject wouldcontribute to solvingproblems at theEuropean level (i.e.why the expectedimpact of doing thework at Europeanlevel, with atransnationalapproach would begreater then the sumof impacts on nationalprojects)
How is the quality ofthe research improvedby its execution on aEuropean basis?Explain the need toestablish a criticalmass in human andfinancial terms andthe combination ofcomplimentaryexpertise andresources availableacross Europe indifferent organisations
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
Impact3
solution for the single market. In the case of consumer acceptance, we learntfrom genetically modified food that the population of Europe was less open tothe technique than, say, the USA. Furthermore, it is understood that there aresome evidenced trends between specific Member States therefore theconsumer understanding, dissemination and trials need to be conductedacross Europe.
Effect of trans-national technological cooperation
In recent years, the European food production industry has experiencedconsiderable economic pressure from overseas competitors, which has forcedEuropean SMEs to seek competitive advantages by the adoption of newproducts and processes. While some innovations can be developed andintroduced at the single company level, there are many opportunities, such asa move towards edible packaging, which would be more effectivelyimplemented across the whole sector. Under these circumstances, SMEs looktowards other partners to take a lead but, where this entails expert R&Dcapabilities, the SMEs rarely have the necessary expertise and facilities toundertake the work. This makes the food industry extremely vulnerable tochanges in customer demands for healthy diets, convenience and aperception of environmental friendliness.
By cooperating at a trans-national level, the SME’s will gain a greaterappreciation of the breadth of national consumer and industry requirementsand, by being in a position to steer the direction of the research, will be able toensure that they obtain the maximum opportunities to service both domesticand international markets. In addition, by selecting specific RTD performersfrom different states that can provide complementary expertise, a critical andcost-effective mass of activity will be brought to bear that will maximise thevalue of the work undertaken. It would not be possible to achieve all of thesebenefits by attempting to undertake the programme within a single EU state.The combined efforts of the project participants will ensure that thedeliverables meet the requirements of all interested parties and thatexploitation opportunities will be maximised. The multi-national backgroundsof the consortium SME’s and the RTDPs will ensure that the demonstrationand training activities will effectively diffuse through to the target SMEbeneficiaries and meet their individual demands for the new packagingsystem. All project participants will benefit from having the opportunity tointeract and exchange ideas with the other consortium members from otherstates that would otherwise be difficult to achieve outside of the project.
Explain how theresearch may increasetransnationaltechnologicalcooperation amongSMEs and researchorganisations or otherorganisations at theEuropean level. Whereappropriatetechnology transferbetween industrialsectors should bedescribed.
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
page 52
Impact3
3.2 Appropriateness of measures envisaged for the dissemination and/orexploitation of project results, and management of intellectual property
The involvement of Euro-OP in the project consortium is innovative butjustified within the context of this project since, while the technology is beingdeveloped, this participant will ensure that measures are implemented to keepconsumers and end-users fully informed. The objective of this is to provideinformed feed-back and, also, to avert public concerns that have followedother innovative food developments where the technologies were developedand the public felt that it was forced upon them without prior knowledge,warning or the right to choose.
3.2.1 Project results and IPR
Ownership of IPR and User rights
The participants in the EDIPAC project have agreed to adopt the defaultposition regarding intellectual property namely that the SME’s will retain fullownership of all Foreground Information (i.e. the project results). As most ofthis IP will be generated by the RTDPs, they will be fully reimbursed for theircosts incurred during the course of the research programme. This principle willbe contractually bound into the Grant Agreement to include the Description ofWork (annex I), the rights and obligations of all participants to the GrantAgreement, which will be duly signed by all participants prior to initiation ofthe project.
In particular, the SME’s will gain full rights to exploit and disseminate theresults among their member, and latterly, their non-member companies.Furthermore, the RTDPs will grant the SMEs free access to all their relevantBackground Information so that exploitation is not impeded. The RTDPs will,however, retain ownership of their own Background Information and will begranted the rights to pursue further R&D in sectors outside of the foodindustry. The SME participants will therefore be in a position to grant(exclusive or non-exclusive) licences and negotiate royalty payments that willbe in the best commercial interests of themselves and their membercompanies.
Regarding IP, the Consortium Agreement will:• direct the management of the IPR, both Background and Foreground• detail the arrangements for providing access to the Background for projectpurposes
• define ownership of the anticipated results• propose conditions for a fair and equitable agreement on the payment ofpatenting costs by the SME’s and the distribution of downstream revenues
A clear and adequatedescription of how theparticipants willorganise IPRownership and userrights (licences,royalties etc)
This section mustclearly describe theterms of theTransaction asindicated in theECGA, reflecting theagreement within theconsortium on theownership offoreground and theaccess rights to beprovided to any SMEparticipant and theremuneration paid byit to a RTD Performer
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
Impact3
page53
• define the roles of the project participants regarding exploitation anddissemination of the anticipated results
IP management and exploitation
Dr John Moneypenny, Director for Research Exploitation, PFFM, will take onthe role of Exploitation & IP Manager for the EDIPAC project. It will be his dutyto ensure that the knowledge gained in this project will be exploited anddisseminated for the maximum benefit of the SME’s. He will manage allknowledge developed within the EDIPAC project and will have fullresponsibility for protecting the Intellectual Property derived. With regard topatenting, he will be assisted by Professor Jennifer Smart from the NationalUniversity of the Netherlands who has wide ranging experience in patentapplications and IP management. She was the original inventor of Fantasyleneand has the experience of processing the earlier patent application. ProfessorSmart and her team could be named as co-inventors of the patent butownership will reside with the SME’s businesses.
The role of the Exploitation & IP Manager will be to:
• identify and assess all project results
• regulate the reporting of project results
• prevent unapproved public disclosure of results by the RTDPs
• update the EDIPAC Management Board on a regular six monthly basis
• instigate recommendations for an appropriate IP protection approach
• follow through once the protection strategy is agreed
• ensure adequate protection is in place prior to exploitation anddissemination
All RTDP researchers will fill in Laboratory Notebooks a daily basis throughoutthe term of the project and will provide these notebooks for signature sign-offand dating each month by their team leader. All Foreground Informationgenerated during the project will be documented and reported on at the 6monthly meetings of the Management Board. The Board will review theseresults and ideas and will formulate the most appropriate protection strategy(with direction from the Exploitation & IP Manager).
There is full confidence that all IP developed in the project by the RTDPs willbe reported to the SME participants and a clause to this effect will beincorporated into the project Collaboration agreement. It is anticipated thatpatentable IP will be generated during the course of the EDIPAC project. The
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
page 54
Impact3
SMEs, under the directorship of the Exploitation & IP Manager, will engagecompetent European patent agents when necessary to advise on patentissues, draft preliminary patent applications and seek advice on copyrightissues as they arise. This activity has been catered for in the project budgetunder ‘Other Costs’.
The Exploitation & IP Manager will draw up guidelines to ensure that theRTDPs refrain from including any confidential project-related work in activitiesthat may lead to public exposure of the project results prior to their protection.These guidelines will include a condition that any document intended forpublication will be circulated in draft form to all project participants who willthen have 2 weeks in which to convey to the authors any objections they mayhave to publication.
IP Registration
At the start of the project, an IP Register will be produced that eachparticipating organisation will have the ability to contribute to. Each participantwill be required to list in the Register all of its Background IP (patents, know-how etc.) that is relevant to, or could affect the exploitation of, ForegroundInformation that is generated during the project. Each participant will also beable to place on the Register any ‘external’ IP that they may discover that,similarly, could affect protection of Foreground IP. This will be a ‘livingdocument’ that will be updated, as appropriate, during the course of theproject and will support the activities of the Management Board in deciding onthe areas and nature of IP protection that will be pursued.
3.2.2 Dissemination and Use
The Exploitation & IP Manager, will be responsible for the exploitation anddissemination of the project results.
The role will require him to:
• ensure adequate protection prior to exploitation and dissemination activities
• develop dissemination and exploitation strategies in line with emergingproject results
• report the proposed strategies to the project Management Board
• implement the strategies, once agreed with the Management Board
The handling of IPRshould be embedded ina wider knowledgemanagement plan. It isadvisable to insert adedicated task into thework-plan and includea detailed IPRmanagement plan,including;
- Relevant staff
- Project results
- Ownership offoreground (see tableIPR 1)
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
Impact3
page55
Plan for the use and dissemination of Foreground
Dissemination activities will commence once the IP protection measures are inplace, however, milestone progress reports will be made to the membership ofthe SMEs through their respective websites, the EDIPAC website, bulletinreports and/or circulars throughout the project. Full knowledge of the projectresults will be transferred to the SMEs via non-disclosure on a royalty-free,unencumbered access basis. The non-disclosure confidentiality agreementswill be in place prior to any dissemination or demonstration activities. Thistransfer of Foreground knowledge will be implemented through a series ofinformation seminars and demonstration/training workshops.
Dissemination to a wider audience / raising public awareness & acceptance
Scientific achievement will be disseminated by the RTDPs through paperspresented at conferences(e.g. Euro Materials Expo) and published in technicalmagazines such as ’Polymers Today’ and ‘Material World’ Some of thefundamental polymer science will be published in high quality, peer reviewedjournals such as ‘Acta Polymerica’. In all cases, permission to disseminate willbe obtained in advance from the project Exploitation Committee so as not tojeopardise confidential information. EFFP and FPA will ensure similardissemination to the food industry by publications in the trade press andrepresentation at Food Fairs and Trade Shows such as Verpackung Nord.EuOP will hold meetings with the major consumer organisations and will holdstore-point tasting sessions when the products are launched.
Other dissemination mechanisms will include:
• EDIPAC project website
• EU specific websites and promotions office
• Technology transfer initiatives (European & National)
• Trade bodies
• EU Government Departments – specifically for Agriculture & Food
• Advertising campaign – (ranging from in-store promotions through to mediaadvertising (National Press/radio/TV)
• Consumer dialogue
Exploitation routes to Market
PFFM, and Inno-Retail will develop a marketing strategy for this novelpackaging on behalf of their respective SME members and retail outlets and
The IPR defaultregime desired by theEuropean Commissionfor these types ofproject is for theownership to stay withSMEs equally.However, the SMEsmay agree on otherconditions with theRTD performers.
This fictitious proposalhas been developed toshow one possiblescenario in Table 3.2.2that differs from thisdefault position. It ispresented here forillustrative purposesonly and should not beused as the desired ordefault IPR ownershipposition. The optimumscenario is that ALLSMEs have ownershipof the foreground IPderived from theproject, and that eachSME has theopportunity to exploitthis IP commercially,either individually orin some collectivesense via the SMEpartnership.
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
page 56
Impact3
will follow through with an appropriate marketing/ advertising campaign. The SME partners have ready-made markets for this product. Initial introduction to the market place will occur through the Inno-Retailmini-market chain. As confidence is established, the packaged food products will go to market throughexisting networks (various retail chains and distribution networks). Introduction to the market place willbe on a phased basis and progressive build
Expectations /timelines on market growth and share:
Note 1: Food Suppliers. Les Vergers (France) and PisciCatch (Portugal) will stock and sell fruit and fishproducts with the Beta Fantasylene coating. Euro OP will monitor sales and follow up on relatedconsumer satisfaction surveys. Year 1 sales are forecast at a conservative 5% increase for these twocompanies equating to €800.000 for the two SMEs.Note 2: Based on favourable Year 1 consumer feedback, PFFM and Euro-OP have agreed to promoteand set up market replication projects in Germany, UK, France and Portugal that will aim to increasesales by a factor of 25 on the first year sales. This will mean a projected sales increase in Year 2 of €8million in the target states.
Note 3: Replication will occur throughout Europe in Year 3 with an estimated sales increase of €25million. The main focus in Year 3, however, will be in licensing of this technology throughout the world innon-European markets. This will achieve projected yearly licence fees of €5 million to the IP ownersand exploiters of the technology.
As has been stated above, the Foreground IP generated during the EDIPAC project will be owned bythe RTDPs who will lead the dissemination and exploitation activities principally aimed at technologytransfer to the SME companies. This will be accomplished through demonstration workshops andtraining on the pilot plant facility. Those SMEs in the food production and retail sectors that wish toadopt the technology will be granted royalty-free access to the IP for exploitation relating to fruit andfish. There will be a commercial supply of Fantasylene and equipment to the SMEs. To achieve this,during the project exploitation activities, specialist companies that manufacture polymers and coatingmachinery will be identified and licences negotiated to allow the SMEs to adopt the edible packagingprocess, initially, by the end of the first year after project completion. To support exploitation, the resultsof the consumer acceptance trials will be made available to the SMEs on a confidential basis
The approach to exploitation is summarised in the following Tables
Develop Coating Technology
Market Replication in Europe
(see Note 2)
Initial Product Stock set up and Sales
(see Note 1)
Manufacture and Sale of Spraying
Technology
Consumer Acceptance
trials
Integrate processes ,
deposition trials
Licence to import franchises
(see Note 3)
D2.3 D3.3 D5.2 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Project Life Cycle Exploitation Life Cycle (years 1 to 4)
D5.4
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
Impact3
page57
Table3.2.2
Project
Results
(includ
ingkn
owledge)
tobeac
quiredby
theSMEparticipan
ts.
1)PFFM
(4)LeVer
(5)PisC
ProjectResult
(No)
ProjectResult
(Description)
Typeof
Exploitation(*)
Remuneration
(€)
Typeof
Exploitation(*)
Remuneration
(€)
Typeof
Exploitation(*)
Remuneration
(€)
1.1
Characterisationof
Fantasylene
Licensing&
IPR
1.2
Stability
knowledge-
polymer
Licensing&
IPR
1.3
Stabilityknowledge
-foodcontact
Licensing&
IPR
Ownership
Ownership
1.4
Raw
material
manufacture
Ownership
Licensing
Licensing
2.1
Depositionprocess
Licensing
Licensing
3.1
PilotProcess
development
Patenting
Licensing
Licensing
3.2
Developsurface
treatmenttofood
Licensing
3.3
Depositiontrials
3.4
PilotPacking
Process
Ownership
Ownership
Subtotal
remuneration
778,000***
167,000***
167,000***
Total
remunerations**
1,112,000
(*)Ownership,Patenting,Licensing,otherIPRprotection,etc
(**)ThisTotalmustbeequaltothefigureestimatedinFormA3.2
(***)Thisfigurerepresentsthesumtotaloftheremuneration(invoices)forthesubcontractingtotheRTD
performer
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
page 58
Ethical Issues4
Ethical Issues4YES PAGE
Informed Consent• Does the proposal involve children? No• Does the proposal involve patients or persons not able to give consent? No• Does the proposal involve adult healthy volunteers? No• Does the proposal involve Human Genetic Material? No• Does the proposal involve Human biological samples? No• Does the proposal involve Human data collection? NoResearch on Human embryo/foetus• Does the proposal involve Human Embryos? No• Does the proposal involve Human Foetal Tissue / Cells? No• Does the proposal involve Human Embryonic Stem Cells? NoPrivacy• Does the proposal involve processing of genetic information or personal data (e.g.health. Sexual lifestyle. ethnicity. political opinion. religious or philosophical conviction)
No
• Does the proposal involve tracking the location or observation of people? No
Research on Animals
• Does the proposal involve research on animals? No
• Are those animals transgenic small laboratory animals? No
• Are those animals transgenic farm animals? No
• Are those animals cloning farm animals? No
•Are those animals non-human primates? No
Research Involving Developing Countries
•Use of local resources (genetic. animal. plant etc) No
• Benefit to local community (capacity building i.e. access to healthcare. education etc) No
Dual Use
•Research having potential military / terrorist application No
I CONFIRM THAT NONE OF THE ABOVE ISSUES APPLY TO MY PROPOSAL YES
Describe any ethical issues that mayarise in the proposal. In particular, thefollowing special considerations (whererelevant):
• Informed consent• Data protection issues• Use of Animals• Human embryonic stem cells
Include the ethical issues table - if any ofthe boxes are completed positively, referback to the page in the proposal.
There will be no ethical issuesREMEMBER if there are no ethical issues, tick the YES box at the end of the form
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
Consideration ofgender aspects5
page59
Consideration ofGender Aspects5
The project does not lead to any gender issues the researchers / marketing staff / consumers are certainlyto include representative population balances.
These are not evaluated but may be discussed during contract negotiations. They could include actions related tothe consortium or where appropriate actions aimed at a wider public e.g. dissemination eventsInclude a list of any relevant EU or nationally funded projectsInclude a full list of relevant references cited in the proposal
END OF EXAMPLE PROPOSAL
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
page 60
List of ReferencesandRelatedProjects6
• Related Applications
There have been no other applications to any other European programme
• List of other related European or nationally Funded projects.
A search of the Cordis database has identified a CRAFT proposal ‘Biodegradable Film’. Work wasconducted into the use of non-toxic films for the decoration of edible products. It excluded the foods in thisproposal discussions have been held with the co-ordinator and the film in question was structurallydifferent from Fantasylene
• Relevant references cited in this proposal
1 The real and total cost of packaging –Materials World-Polymer review 2000
2 Conclusions of the Green Society meeting of 12 December 2001 re: disposal and recycling of thepackaging mountain
3 Cling Film – decreasing the sperm count in males up to the age of 40- Daily Alarm Friday 13thDecember 2002
4 Fantasylene – a new safe synthetic material that will replace gelatine and be fully acceptable to vegans -Meat and Livestock Journal vol 9. 2004
5 UK patent no 223952144.3 dated March 2004 European patent No 346772241999.7 dated May 2004
6 Drug company experiences a nasty taste –in The Continental Pharmacist Vol 203. pages 223-225; 2003
7 ‘Alpha and Beta Fantasylene compounds; it is all in the lattice’ Materials universe. Vol 112. pages 13-27;2005
Before you submit your proposal using the EPSS system check it thoroughly to ensure that you have beenconsistent in allocation of codes and numbers to work packages, partners, references etc. Once you havefinalised the proposal you will be unable to make further changes beyond the closure date.Finally, always ensure that you allow sufficient time in your calendar of preparation activity to allow forsubmission in plenty of time. If there has been a large response to a call (and most people, by definition, submitat the last minute) you might find that the EU servers cannot cope and there could be a delay in receipt. If thecall deadline is reached, any proposals that are not through the system but in a queue will not be eligible
List of ReferencesandRelatedProjects
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
Check List
page 61
FINAL PROPOSAL CHECK LIST
Does your planned work fit with the call for proposals? Check that yourproposed work addresses the call. (See the current version of the workprogramme).
Is your proposal eligible? The eligibility criteria are given in the work programme.In particular, make sure that you satisfy the minimum requirements for themakeup of your consortium. Have any additional eligibility criteria been set forthis call? Check that you comply with any budgetary limits that may have beenfixed on the requested EU contribution. Any proposal not meeting the eligibilityrequirements will be considered ineligible and will not be evaluated.
Is your proposal complete? Proposals must comprise a Part A, containing theadministrative information including participant and project cost details onstandard forms; and a Part B containing the scientific and technical descriptionof your proposal as described in this Guide. A proposal that does not containboth parts will be considered ineligible and will not be evaluated.
Does your proposed work raise ethical issues? Clearly indicate any potentialethical, safety or regulatory aspects of the proposed research and the way theywill be dealt with in your proposed project. An ethical check will take place duringthe evaluation and an ethical review will take place for proposals dealing withsensitive issues. Proposals may be rejected on ethical grounds if such issues arenot dealt with satisfactorily.
Does your proposal follow the required structure? Proposals should be preciseand concise and must follow exactly the proposal structure described in thisdocument which is designed to correspond to the evaluation criteria which willbe applied. This structure varies for different funding schemes. Omittingrequested information will almost certainly lead to lower scores and possiblerejection.
Have you maximised your chances? There will be strong competition. Therefore,edit your proposal tightly and strengthen or eliminate weak points. Put yourself inthe place of an expert evaluator; refer to the evaluation criteria. Arrange for yourdraft to be evaluated by experienced colleagues; use their advice to improve itbefore submission.
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
page 62
Additional Informationand support7
Official Documents
This guide to Research for SMEs and example proposal is intended to help understand theprinciples of Research for SMEs. It does not supersede the official and legally binding documentsrelated to the call. To prepare a proposal please refer to the:
• Work programme 2010 "Research for the benefit of SMEs"
• Guide for applicants "Research for the benefit of SMEs "
• Guide to Intellectual Property Rules for FP7 projects
• Rules for the submission of proposals
These documents and additional information about the open calls are available on the followingwebpage:
http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/dc/index.
The SME TechWeb website provides a wide range of background information and resources fortechnology oriented SMEs:
http://sme.cordis.lu/home/index.cfm
The website of the National Contact Points for Small and medium Size Enterprises (NCP SME)European network provides further guidance, including the SME definition test
http://www.ncp-sme.net/tools/sme-definition
Support
The network of National Contact Points (NCPs) for SMEs is the main provider of advice andindividual assistance in all Member States and associated countries. They offer a wide range ofservices and should be the first contact when preparing a proposal. You can easily find the contactdetails of the designated National Contact Point for your country:http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ncp_en.html
Additional Informationand support
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
Additional Informationand support / Glossary
page63
GlossaryA
Acknowledgement of receipt - Applicants are informed by email shortly afterthe deadline that a proposal has been successfully submitted (but not that itis necessarily eligible). Contact the help desk urgently if you do not receivesuch an acknowledgement.
Applicant - The term used generally in the guide for a person or entityapplying to a call fro proposals. The term ‘participant’ is used in the morelimited sense of a member of a proposal or project consortium.
Associated countries - Non-EU countries which are party to an internationalagreement with the Community, under the terms or on the basis of which itmakes a financial contribution to all or part of the Seventh FrameworkProgramme. In the context of proposal consortia, organisations from thesecountries are treated on the same footing as those in the EU. The list ofassociated countries is given in the body of the guide.
C
Call fiche - The part of the work programme giving the basic data for a call forproposals (e.g. topics covered, budget, deadline etc). It is posted as aseparate document on the
CORDIS web page devoted to a particular call.
Call for proposals (or "call") - An announcement, usually in the OfficialJournal, inviting proposals for research activities in a certain theme. Fullinformation on the call can be found on the CORDIS web-site.
Consortium - Most funding schemes require proposals from a number ofparticipants (usually at least three) who agree to work together in a consortium.
Consortium agreement – This is an agreement made between theparticipants of a project consortium to govern a number of issues that mayarise during delivery. It is required by all FP7 funded projects, unless otherwiseindicated.
Coordinator - The member of the consortium who acts as the point ofcontact with the Commission.
CORDIS service - A web service providing access to all the documentationrelated to FP7, and access to the electronic proposal submission service.
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
page 64
Additional Informationand support7Additional Informationand support / Glossary
Cut-off date - An intermediate date in the context of a call operating acontinuous submission procedure. Full proposals are evaluated in batchesafter each cut-off date.
D
Deadline - For a particular call, the moment after which proposals will not bereceived by the Commission, and when the Electronic Proposal SubmissionService closes for that call. Deadlines are strictly enforced.
Deliverable - A deliverable represents a verifiable output of the project.Normally, each work package will produce one or more deliverables during itslifetime. Deliverables are often written reports but can also take another form,for example the completion of a prototype etc.
E
Electronic Proposal Submission Service (EPSS) - A web-based servicewhich must be used to submit proposals to the Commission. Access is giventhrough the CORDIS web-site, or via a specific site.
Eligibility criteria - The minimum conditions which a proposal must fulfil if it isto be evaluated. The eligibility criteria are generally the same for all proposalsthroughout FP7, and relate to submission before the deadline, minimumparticipation, completeness and scope. However, specific eligibility criteriamay apply to certain calls, and applicants should check the work programme.
Evaluation criteria - The criteria against which eligible proposals areassessed by independent experts. The evaluation criteria are generally thesame for all proposals throughout FP7, and relate to S/T quality, impact andimplementation. Relevance is also considered. However, specific evaluationcriteria may apply to certain calls, and applicants should check the workprogramme, and annex 2 of the Guide.
Evaluation Summary Report (ESR) - The assessment of a particularproposal following the evaluation by independent experts. It normally containsboth comments and scores for each evaluation criterion.
F
Funding scheme - The type of support that can be given to a project within acall. The funding schemes have different objectives, and are implementedthrough different grant agreement conditions.
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
Additional Informationand support / Glossary
page65
G
Grant agreement - The legal instrument that provides for Commissionfunding of successful proposals.
I
International Cooperation Partner Countries (ICPC) - See here for the list ofcountries: ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp7/docs/icpc-list.pdf
International organisations of European interest - Internationalorganisations, the majority of whose members are European Union MemberStates or Associated States, and whose principal objective is to promoteEuropean scientific and technological co-operation
J
Joint Research Centre (JRC) - The Commission’s own research laboratories.
M
Member State – The EU-27 - Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic,Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary,Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland,Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, UK.
Milestone - Milestones are control points where decisions are needed withregard to the next stage of the project. For example, a milestone may occurwhen a major result has been achieved, if its successful attainment is a pre-requisite for the next phase of work.
N
National Contact Points (NCP) - Persons officially nominated by the nationalauthorities to provide tailored information and advice on each theme of FP7, inthe national language(s).
Negotiation - The process of establishing a grant agreement between theCommission and an applicant whose proposal has been favourably evaluated,and when funds are available.
P
Part A - The part of a proposal dealing with administrative data. This part iscompleted using the web-based EPSS.
Part B - The part of a proposal explaining the work to be carried out, and theroles and aptitudes of the participants in the consortium. This part is uploadedto the EPSS as a pdf
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
page 66
Additional Informationand support / Glossary
File participants - The members of a consortium in a proposal or project.
Programme committee - A group of official national representatives whoassist the Commission in implementing the Framework Programme.
Proposal - A description of the planned research activities, information onwho will carry them out, how much they will cost, and how much funding isrequested
R
Reserve list - Due to budgetary constraints it may not be possible to supportall proposals that have been evaluated positively. In such conditions,proposals on a reserve list may only be financed if funds become availablefollowing the negotiation of projects on the main list. This will extend thetimescale for a final decision.
Risk-Sharing Finance Facility (RSFF) - A new mechanism to foster privatesector investment in research, by increasing the capacity of the EuropeanInvestment Bank and its financial partners to provide loans for European RTDprojects.
RTD - Research and technological development.
RTD Performer - Research and technological development performingorganisation.
S
Scientific and Technological Cooperation Agreements - Countries withsigned S&T agreements: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Chile,Egypt, India, Mexico, Morocco, Russia, South Africa, Tunisia, Ukraine andUnited States
Single Stage Submission this is the process whereby there is only one stageinvolved in the electronic submission of a proposal (as is the case in this call,in some calls a two stage process is used)
SME - Small or medium sized enterprise. This definition applies to businesseswith fewer than 250 employees and a turnover less than €50 million.Small businesses employ fewer than 50 people and have a turnover of lessthan €10 million, while micro businesses employ fewer than 10 people andhave a turnover of less than €2 million.Sub Contractor an individual or organisation that is contracted to deliverspecific tasks to assist the delivery of the programme; for example, an agencythat is contracted to design and run the project web site
Research for the benefit of SMEsEDIPAC
Additional Informationand support / Glossary
page67
T
Third Country - Countries that are not EU Member States, Candidate orAssociated Countries
Thresholds For a proposal to be considered for funding, the evaluation scoresfor individual criteria must exceed certain thresholds. There is also an overallthreshold for the sum of the scores.
W
Weightings - The scores for certain evaluation criteria may be multiplied by aweighting factor before the total score is calculated. Generally, weightings areset to 1; but there may be exceptions and applicants should check the details.
Work package - A work package is a major sub-division of the proposedproject with a verifiable end-point - normally a deliverable or a milestone in theoverall project
Work programme - A formal document of the Commission that sets out theresearch objectives and topics to be addressed. It also contains informationthat is set out further in this guide, including the schedule and details of thecalls for proposals, indicative budgets, and the evaluation procedure.
Acknowledgements - In addition to the contribution from the members ofthe TransCoSME consortium, contributions were also gratefully receivedfrom Technofi (France)
Related Documents
