SME Proposal_1326

Document Sample
SME Proposal_1326 Powered By Docstoc
					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
Contents
This 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 document
to help SME’s format their own submissions; it is not a real bid. The content is entirely fictional
and thus it is not possible to judge the realism of the imaginary goals, or the viability of the
concept, but to allow realistic evaluation, key assumptions have been made around aspects such
as the nature of the polymer, and risk of contamination etc. No part of the proposal should be cut
and pasted into any other document.



Produced by Beta Technology for the TransCoSME project



page 2
                                                                           Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                                    EDIPAC
     Introduction




Introduction
This example proposal is produced as part of the TransCoSME project;
TransCoSME is part-funded by the European Commission under the
Capacities theme 'Research for the benefit of SMEs', and aims to increase the
number and quality of projects containing and/or impacting on European
SMEs. By supporting innovative SME’s, there will be a knock-on effect in the
improvement to the wider EU economy.
The funding scheme, “Research for the benefit of specific groups (in particular
SMEs)”, will support research and technological development projects across
the entire field of science and technology, where the bulk of the research is
carried out by RTD performers for the benefit of specific groups, in particular
low and medium technology Small and Medium sized Enterprises (SME’s), but
including research intensive SMEs to complement their core capability.
This fictitious project proposal – EDIPAC – incorporates many features that a
real structured, designed, and formal project application would contain. The
additional advice notes ( ) provided in the document are intended to further
support and clarify the actual proposal text at certain relevant points, to help
applicants when developing their own proposal.
Please note:
Due to the extra explanations and illustrations, and in some cases the
addition of duplicate tables for clarification, this means that the example
bid exceeds the maximum permitted specified length. ALL APPLICANTS
MUST KEEP TO THE MAXIMUM LENGTH FOR THEIR ACTUAL
PROPOSAL and use the format as specified in the official guide issued
with the all information related to the call for proposals, which can be
downloaded from the following web-site:
http://www.cordis.europa.eu/fp7/calls
NO MATERIALS SHOULD BE ‘CUT AND PASTED’ INTO OTHER
DOCUMENTS – to ensure the innovative nature of the project is
demonstrated to the evaluators.




                                                                                                       page 1
                                                                           Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                                    EDIPAC
         Introduction




NOT ALL SME’s WILL HAVE THE CAPACITY TO PARTICIPATE – the
scheme is designed to assist companies in acquiring technological
know-how and accessing international networks for their medium to
long term business development. In this context, the real investment
or cost incurred by the SME includes the price they pay for the know-
how they wish to acquire and the intellectual property rights and
knowledge developed during the project. Even if the level of public
funding provided is substantial, it will never cover all the costs, some
element will have to be covered by the SMEs themselves.




page 2
                                        Proposal Submission
                 EUROPEAN COMMISSION                       Research for the
                 7th Framework Programme on
                 Research, Technological
                 Development and Demonstration
                                                           benefit of SMEs
                                                           Research for SMEs
                                                                                                      A1
Proposal 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) most            9-Environment/Waste            10-Food,                  Free keywords
relevant to your topic                                                                  (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 and
instruction; however, the packaging costs experienced by the manufacturer are a significant element
of the final product cost. As food prices are rising across the world, the drive to reduce costs and
remain competitive is stronger than ever. The cost of the package is passed to the consumer who
usually finds the product inaccessible due to the pack and the package disposal wasteful. Disposal
and recycling problems are experienced and for some packaging materials these are problematic and
expensive, both in terms of the product costs and in terms of recycling or disposal. New directives are
constantly being introduced to limit the use of non-biodegradable packaging and food manufacturers
and 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 and
protection requirements, yet has negligible disposal problems. Thus the proposal is strongly sector
driven. However, whatever advantages the packaging has in terms of reliability, functionality and easy
biodegradation 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 the
following 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 of
drugs, has proved unreliable for that application because it intermittently mimics the taste, texture and
aroma of the encapsulated drug. However, the material has been shown to be meta-stable, being an
insulator in the alpha-phase and conductive in the beta –phase. An opportunity has been recognised
to exploit this behaviour and use a stable beta Fantasylene as an edible packaging material to be
coated 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 a             NO
call for proposals of the 7th EU RTD Framework Programme?
b) Is this proposal (or a very similar one) currently being submitted to                NO
another call under FP7?
page 3
                                         Proposal Submission
                   EUROPEAN COMMISSION                       Research for the
                  7th Framework Programme on
                  Research, Technological
                  Development and Demonstration
                                                             benefit of SMEs
                                                             Research for SMEs
                                                                                            A2.1
Proposal Number                   Proposal Acronym              EDIPAC          Participant number   1


                     INFORMATION ON PARTICIPANTS (ONE FORM PER PARTICIPANT)

If your organisation has already registered for FP7, enter your Participant Identity
Code
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


                                                  Status of your organisation

Certain types of organisations benefit from special conditions under the FP7 participation rules. The
Commission 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 following
categories.

1/ Public body                     YES □                             NO ⌧
2/ Non profit organisation         YES □                             NO ⌧

Please select the type of activity of your organisation: HE / RES / IND / SERV / OTH
Activity type (NACE code): 7482 - Packaging activities




                                                                                                         page 4
                                         Proposal Submission
                  EUROPEAN COMMISSION                       Research for the
                  7th Framework Programme on
                  Research, Technological
                  Development and Demonstration
                                                            benefit of SMEs
                                                            Research for SMEs
                                                                                          A2.1
Do you carry out some form of economic activity (and are therefore regarded as an enterprise’)
              YES

IF YES:

Total data of your enterprise:

Staff headcount        35                 Annual turnover     10 mill €   Annual balance sheet      5 mill €

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 linked
enterprises, 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:

How many EU Member States or Associated Countries are represented in your                               /
association/grouping?

Percentage of SME                /           Percentage of other     /        Percentage of other       /
members                                      enterprises members              SME-AG members

Number of SME                    /           Number of other         /        Number of other SME-      /
members                                      enterprise members               AG members




page 5
                                       Proposal Submission
                 EUROPEAN COMMISSION                  Research for the
                7th Framework Programme on
                Research, Technological
                Development and Demonstration
                                                      benefit of SMEs
                                                      Research for SMEs
                                                                                          A2.2
Proposal 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) in              NO
this proposal? (Yes or No)
If Yes:

Participant Number                   Organisation Short Name           Character of
                                                                       dependence
Participant Number                   Organisation Short Name           Character of
                                                                       dependence
Participant Number                   Organisation Short Name           Character of
                                                                       dependence

                                                  Contact points

Person in charge (For the co-ordinator (participant number 1) this person is the one who the
Commission 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                              john.bigg@PFFM.org         Fax                            +34 852 456
                                                                                                        page 6
                                         Proposal Submission
                   EUROPEAN COMMISSION                       Research for the
                  7th Framework Programme on
                  Research, Technological
                  Development and Demonstration
                                                             benefit of SMEs
                                                             Research for SMEs
                                                                                             A2.1
Proposal Number                   Proposal Acronym              EDIPAC          Participant number   2


                     INFORMATION ON PARTICIPANTS (ONE FORM PER PARTICIPANT)

If your organisation has already registered for FP7, enter your Participant Identity
Code
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


                                                  Status of your organisation

Certain types of organisations benefit from special conditions under the FP7 participation rules. The
Commission 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 following
categories.

1/ Public body                     YES □                             NO ⌧
2/ Non profit organisation         YES □                             NO ⌧

Please select the type of activity of your organisation: HE / RES / IND / SERV / OTH
Activity type (NACE code): 913 Activities of other membership organizations




                                                                                                         page 7
                                         Proposal Submission
                  EUROPEAN COMMISSION                       Research for the
                  7th Framework Programme on
                  Research, Technological
                  Development and Demonstration
                                                            benefit of SMEs
                                                            Research for SMEs
                                                                                          A2.1
Do you carry out some form of economic activity (and are therefore regarded as an enterprise’)
              YES

IF YES:

Total data of your enterprise:

Staff headcount        135                Annual turnover     38 mill €   Annual balance sheet      20 mill €

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 linked
enterprises, 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:

How many EU Member States or Associated Countries are represented in your                               /
association/grouping?

Percentage of SME                /           Percentage of other      /       Percentage of other       /
members                                      enterprises members              SME-AG members

Number of SME                    /           Number of other          /       Number of other SME-      /
members                                      enterprise members               AG members




page 8
                                       Proposal Submission
                 EUROPEAN COMMISSION                 Research for the
                7th Framework Programme on
                Research, Technological
                Development and Demonstration
                                                     benefit of SMEs
                                                     Research for SMEs
                                                                                      A2.2
Proposal 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) in          NO
this proposal? (Yes or No)
If Yes:

Participant Number                   Organisation Short Name         Character of
                                                                     dependence
Participant Number                   Organisation Short Name         Character of
                                                                     dependence
Participant Number                   Organisation Short Name         Character of
                                                                     dependence

                                                Contact points

Person in charge (For the co-ordinator (participant number 1) this person is the one who the
Commission 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                              M.Ferrero@tastytesters.it Fax                         +39 0642135
                                                                                                   page 9
                                         Proposal Submission
                   EUROPEAN COMMISSION                       Research for the
                  7th Framework Programme on
                  Research, Technological
                  Development and Demonstration
                                                             benefit of SMEs
                                                             Research for SMEs
                                                                                            A2.1
Proposal Number                   Proposal Acronym              EDIPAC          Participant number   3


                     INFORMATION ON PARTICIPANTS (ONE FORM PER PARTICIPANT)

If your organisation has already registered for FP7, enter your Participant Identity
Code
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


                                                  Status of your organisation

Certain types of organisations benefit from special conditions under the FP7 participation rules. The
Commission 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 following
categories.

1/ Public body                     YES □                             NO ⌧
2/ Non profit organisation         YES □                             NO ⌧

Please select the type of activity of your organisation: HE / RES / IND / SERV / OTH
Activity type (NACE code): 913 Activities of other membership organizations




                                                                                                         page 10
                                         Proposal Submission
                  EUROPEAN COMMISSION                       Research for the
                  7th Framework Programme on
                  Research, Technological
                  Development and Demonstration
                                                            benefit of SMEs
                                                            Research for SMEs
                                                                                        A2.1
Do you carry out some form of economic activity (and are therefore regarded as an enterprise’)
              YES

IF YES:

Total data of your enterprise:

Staff headcount        31                 Annual turnover     27m       Annual balance sheet      14m

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 linked
enterprises, 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:

How many EU Member States or Associated Countries are represented in your                               /
association/grouping?

Percentage of SME                /           Percentage of other    /       Percentage of other         /
members                                      enterprises members            SME-AG members

Number of SME                    /           Number of other        /       Number of other SME-        /
members                                      enterprise members             AG members




page 11
                                       Proposal Submission
                 EUROPEAN COMMISSION                  Research for the
                7th Framework Programme on
                Research, Technological
                Development and Demonstration
                                                      benefit of SMEs
                                                      Research for SMEs
                                                                                                 A1
Proposal 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) in            NO
this proposal? (Yes or No)
If Yes:

Participant Number                   Organisation Short Name          Character of
                                                                      dependence
Participant Number                   Organisation Short Name          Character of
                                                                      dependence
Participant Number                   Organisation Short Name          Character of
                                                                      dependence

                                                  Contact points

Person in charge (For the co-ordinator (participant number 1) this person is the one who the
Commission will contact in the first instance)
Family name                         Mustermann                     First name(s)            Erika

Title                               Prof. Dr.                      Sex (Female – F / Male   F
                                                                   – M)
Position in the organisation        Head of Unit

Department/Faculty/Institute Technologies & Innovation Management
/Laboratory name/ …

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                              mustermann@euro-opi.org Fax                             +49 852 456
                                                                                                     page 12
                                         Proposal Submission
                   EUROPEAN COMMISSION                       Research for the
                  7th Framework Programme on
                  Research, Technological
                  Development and Demonstration
                                                             benefit of SMEs
                                                             Research for SMEs
                                                                                           A2.1
Proposal Number                   Proposal Acronym              EDIPAC          Participant number   4


                     INFORMATION ON PARTICIPANTS (ONE FORM PER PARTICIPANT)

If your organisation has already registered for FP7, enter your Participant Identity
Code
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


                                                  Status of your organisation

Certain types of organisations benefit from special conditions under the FP7 participation rules. The
Commission 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 following
categories.

1/ Public body                     YES □                             NO ⌧
2/ Non profit organisation         YES □                             NO ⌧

Please select the type of activity of your organisation: HE / RES / IND / SERV / OTH
Activity type (NACE code): 5131 - Wholesale of fruit and vegetables




                                                                                                         page 13
                                         Proposal Submission
                  EUROPEAN COMMISSION                       Research for the
                  7th Framework Programme on
                  Research, Technological
                  Development and Demonstration
                                                            benefit of SMEs
                                                            Research for SMEs
                                                                                          A2.1
Do you carry out some form of economic activity (and are therefore regarded as an enterprise’)
              YES

IF YES:

Total data of your enterprise:

Staff headcount        35                 Annual turnover     12 mill €   Annual balance sheet      4 mill €

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 linked
enterprises, 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:

How many EU Member States or Associated Countries are represented in your                               /
association/grouping?

Percentage of SME                /           Percentage of other      /       Percentage of other       /
members                                      enterprises members              SME-AG members

Number of SME                    /           Number of other          /       Number of other SME-      /
members                                      enterprise members               AG members




page 14
                                       Proposal Submission
                 EUROPEAN COMMISSION                    Research for the
                7th Framework Programme on
                Research, Technological
                Development and Demonstration
                                                        benefit of SMEs
                                                        Research for SMEs
                                                                                       A2.2
Proposal 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) in           NO
this proposal? (Yes or No)
If Yes:

Participant Number                   Organisation Short Name          Character of
                                                                      dependence
Participant Number                   Organisation Short Name          Character of
                                                                      dependence
Participant Number                   Organisation Short Name          Character of
                                                                      dependence

                                                Contact points

Person in charge (For the co-ordinator (participant number 1) this person is the one who the
Commission will contact in the first instance)
Family name                         Martin                         First name(s)       Michel

Title                                                              Sex (Female – F /   M
                                                                   Male – 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                              m_martin@lesvergers.fr         Fax                 +33 1 85 29 63 71
                                                                                                    page 15
                                         Proposal Submission
                   EUROPEAN COMMISSION                       Research for the
                  7th Framework Programme on
                  Research, Technological
                  Development and Demonstration
                                                             benefit of SMEs
                                                             Research for SMEs
                                                                                            A2.1
Proposal Number                   Proposal Acronym              EDIPAC          Participant number   5


                     INFORMATION ON PARTICIPANTS (ONE FORM PER PARTICIPANT)

If your organisation has already registered for FP7, enter your Participant Identity
Code
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


                                                  Status of your organisation

Certain types of organisations benefit from special conditions under the FP7 participation rules. The
Commission 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 following
categories.

1/ Public body                     YES □                             NO ⌧
2/ Non profit organisation         YES □                             NO ⌧

Please select the type of activity of your organisation: HE / RES / IND / SERV / OTH
Activity type (NACE code): 5223 - Retail sale of fish, crustaceans and molluscs




                                                                                                         page 16
                                         Proposal Submission
                  EUROPEAN COMMISSION                       Research for the
                  7th Framework Programme on
                  Research, Technological
                  Development and Demonstration
                                                            benefit of SMEs
                                                            Research for SMEs
                                                                                                    A1
Do you carry out some form of economic activity (and are therefore regarded as an enterprise’)
              YES

IF YES:

Total data of your enterprise:

Staff headcount        87                 Annual turnover     30 mill €   Annual balance sheet      25 mill €

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 linked
enterprises, 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:

How many EU Member States or Associated Countries are represented in your                               /
association/grouping?

Percentage of SME                /           Percentage of other      /       Percentage of other       /
members                                      enterprises members              SME-AG members

Number of SME                    /           Number of other          /       Number of other SME-      /
members                                      enterprise members               AG members




page 17
                                       Proposal Submission
                 EUROPEAN COMMISSION                 Research for the
                7th Framework Programme on
                Research, Technological
                Development and Demonstration
                                                     benefit of SMEs
                                                     Research for SMEs
                                                                                     A2.2
Proposal 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) in         NO
this proposal? (Yes or No)
If Yes:

Participant Number                   Organisation Short Name        Character of
                                                                    dependence
Participant Number                   Organisation Short Name        Character of
                                                                    dependence
Participant Number                   Organisation Short Name        Character of
                                                                    dependence

                                                Contact points

Person in charge (For the co-ordinator (participant number 1) this person is the one who the
Commission will contact in the first instance)
Family name                         Ramos                        First name(s)       Celso

Title                                                            Sex (Female – F /   M
                                                                 Male – 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                              C.Ramos@piscicultura.pt      Fax                 +351 210 312
                                                                                                   page 18
                                         Proposal Submission
                   EUROPEAN COMMISSION                       Research for the
                  7th Framework Programme on
                  Research, Technological
                  Development and Demonstration
                                                             benefit of SMEs
                                                             Research for SMEs
                                                                                           A2.1
Proposal Number                   Proposal Acronym              EDIPAC          Participant number   6


                     INFORMATION ON PARTICIPANTS (ONE FORM PER PARTICIPANT)

If your organisation has already registered for FP7, enter your Participant Identity
Code
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


                                                  Status of your organisation

Certain types of organisations benefit from special conditions under the FP7 participation rules. The
Commission 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 following
categories.

1/ Public body                     YES □                             NO ⌧
2/ Non profit organisation         YES □                             NO ⌧

Please select the type of activity of your organisation: HE / RES / IND / SERV / OTH
Activity type (NACE code): 522 Retail sale of food




                                                                                                         page 19
                                         Proposal Submission
                  EUROPEAN COMMISSION                       Research for the
                  7th Framework Programme on
                  Research, Technological
                  Development and Demonstration
                                                            benefit of SMEs
                                                            Research for SMEs
                                                                                          A2.1
Do you carry out some form of economic activity (and are therefore regarded as an enterprise’)
              YES

IF YES:

Total data of your enterprise:

Staff headcount        52                 Annual turnover     40 mill €   Annual balance sheet      16 mill €

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 linked
enterprises, 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:

How many EU Member States or Associated Countries are represented in your                               /
association/grouping?

Percentage of SME                /           Percentage of other      /       Percentage of other       /
members                                      enterprises members              SME-AG members

Number of SME                    /           Number of other          /       Number of other SME-      /
members                                      enterprise members               AG members




page 20
                                       Proposal Submission
                 EUROPEAN COMMISSION                  Research for the
                7th Framework Programme on
                Research, Technological
                Development and Demonstration
                                                      benefit of SMEs
                                                      Research for SMEs
                                                                                       A2.2
Proposal 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) in           NO
this proposal? (Yes or No)
If Yes:

Participant Number                   Organisation Short Name          Character of
                                                                      dependence
Participant Number                   Organisation Short Name          Character of
                                                                      dependence
Participant Number                   Organisation Short Name          Character of
                                                                      dependence

                                                  Contact points

Person in charge (For the co-ordinator (participant number 1) this person is the one who the
Commission will contact in the first instance)
Family name                         Pavlovičová                    First name(s)       Anna

Title                                                              Sex (Female – F /   F
                                                                   Male – 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                             + 421 2 593 123 66             Phone 2

E-mail                              anna.pav@innoretail.sk         Fax                 +421259312367
                                                                                                    page 21
                                         Proposal Submission
                   EUROPEAN COMMISSION                       Research for the
                  7th Framework Programme on
                  Research, Technological
                  Development and Demonstration
                                                             benefit of SMEs
                                                             Research for SMEs
                                                                                           A2.1
Proposal Number                   Proposal Acronym              EDIPAC          Participant number   7


                     INFORMATION ON PARTICIPANTS (ONE FORM PER PARTICIPANT)

If your organisation has already registered for FP7, enter your Participant Identity
Code
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


                                                  Status of your organisation

Certain types of organisations benefit from special conditions under the FP7 participation rules. The
Commission 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 following
categories.

1/ Public body                     YES □                             NO ⌧
2/ Non profit organisation         YES □                             NO ⌧

Please select the type of activity of your organisation: HE / RES / IND / SERV / OTH
Activity type (NACE code): 7310 - Research and experimental development on natural sciences
and engineering




                                                                                                         page 22
                                         Proposal Submission
                  EUROPEAN COMMISSION                       Research for the
                  7th Framework Programme on
                  Research, Technological
                  Development and Demonstration
                                                            benefit of SMEs
                                                            Research for SMEs
                                                                                        A2.1
Do you carry out some form of economic activity (and are therefore regarded as an enterprise’)
              NO

IF YES:

Total data of your enterprise:

Staff headcount                           Annual turnover               Annual balance sheet

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 linked
enterprises, 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:

How many EU Member States or Associated Countries are represented in your                          /
association/grouping?

Percentage of SME                /           Percentage of other    /       Percentage of other    /
members                                      enterprises members            SME-AG members

Number of SME                    /           Number of other        /       Number of other SME-   /
members                                      enterprise members             AG members




page 23
                                       Proposal Submission
                 EUROPEAN COMMISSION                  Research for the
                7th Framework Programme on
                Research, Technological
                Development and Demonstration
                                                      benefit of SMEs
                                                      Research for SMEs
                                                                                     A2.2
Proposal 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) in         NO
this proposal? (Yes or No)
If Yes:

Participant Number                   Organisation Short Name        Character of
                                                                    dependence
Participant Number                   Organisation Short Name        Character of
                                                                    dependence
Participant Number                   Organisation Short Name        Character of
                                                                    dependence

                                                Contact points

Person in charge (For the co-ordinator (participant number 1) this person is the one who the
Commission will contact in the first instance)
Family name                         Strongfellow                 First name(s)       Karel

Title                               Prof. Dr.                    Sex (Female – F /   M
                                                                 Male – M)
Position in the organisation        Professor

Department/Faculty/Institute Chemistry Department
/Laboratory name/ …

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                              K.Strongfellow@nun.nl        Fax                 +31 20 525 481
                                                                                                   page 24
                                         Proposal Submission
                   EUROPEAN COMMISSION                       Research for the
                  7th Framework Programme on
                  Research, Technological
                  Development and Demonstration
                                                             benefit of SMEs
                                                             Research for SMEs
                                                                                                     A1
Proposal Number                   Proposal Acronym              EDIPAC          Participant number   8


                     INFORMATION ON PARTICIPANTS (ONE FORM PER PARTICIPANT)

If your organisation has already registered for FP7, enter your Participant Identity
Code
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


                                                  Status of your organisation

Certain types of organisations benefit from special conditions under the FP7 participation rules. The
Commission 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 following
categories.

1/ Public body                     YES □                             NO ⌧
2/ Non profit organisation         YES □                             NO ⌧

Please select the type of activity of your organisation: HE / RES / IND / SERV / OTH
Activity type (NACE code): 2430 - Manufacture of paints, varnishes and similar coatings, printing
ink and mastics




                                                                                                         page 25
                                         Proposal Submission
                  EUROPEAN COMMISSION                       Research for the
                  7th Framework Programme on
                  Research, Technological
                  Development and Demonstration
                                                            benefit of SMEs
                                                            Research for SMEs
                                                                                                    A1
Do you carry out some form of economic activity (and are therefore regarded as an enterprise’)
              YES

IF YES:

Total data of your enterprise:

Staff headcount        110                Annual turnover     43 mill €   Annual balance sheet      31 mill €

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 linked
enterprises, 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:

How many EU Member States or Associated Countries are represented in your                               /
association/grouping?

Percentage of SME                /           Percentage of other      /       Percentage of other       /
members                                      enterprises members              SME-AG members

Number of SME                    /           Number of other          /       Number of other SME-      /
members                                      enterprise members               AG members




page 26
                                       Proposal Submission
                 EUROPEAN COMMISSION                 Research for the
                7th Framework Programme on
                Research, Technological
                Development and Demonstration
                                                     benefit of SMEs
                                                     Research for SMEs
                                                                                              A1
Proposal 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) in         NO
this proposal? (Yes or No)
If Yes:

Participant Number                   Organisation Short Name        Character of
                                                                    dependence
Participant Number                   Organisation Short Name        Character of
                                                                    dependence
Participant Number                   Organisation Short Name        Character of
                                                                    dependence

                                                Contact points

Person in charge (For the co-ordinator (participant number 1) this person is the one who the
Commission will contact in the first instance)
Family name                         Mustermann                   First name(s)       Max

Title                               Dr. Ing.                     Sex (Female – F /   M
                                                                 Male – M)
Position in the organisation        Head of Unit

Department/Faculty/Institute Innovation management
/Laboratory name/ …

Address (if different from the legal address)

Street name                                                      Number

Town

Postal Code / Cedex

Country

Phone 1                             +49 621 12345                Phone 2

E-mail                              max.mustermann@ipt.de        Fax                 +49 621 12347
                                                                                                   page 27
                                         Proposal Submission
                   EUROPEAN COMMISSION                       Research for the
                  7th Framework Programme on
                  Research, Technological
                  Development and Demonstration
                                                             benefit of SMEs
                                                             Research for SMEs
                                                                                           A2.1
Proposal Number                   Proposal Acronym              EDIPAC          Participant number   9


                     INFORMATION ON PARTICIPANTS (ONE FORM PER PARTICIPANT)

If your organisation has already registered for FP7, enter your Participant Identity
Code
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


                                                  Status of your organisation

Certain types of organisations benefit from special conditions under the FP7 participation rules. The
Commission 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 following
categories.

1/ Public body                     YES □                             NO ⌧
2/ Non profit organisation         YES □                             NO ⌧

Please select the type of activity of your organisation: HE / RES / IND / SERV / OTH
Activity type (NACE code): 7482 - Packaging activities




                                                                                                         page 28
                                         Proposal Submission
                  EUROPEAN COMMISSION                       Research for the
                  7th Framework Programme on
                  Research, Technological
                  Development and Demonstration
                                                            benefit of SMEs
                                                            Research for SMEs
                                                                                          A2.1
Do you carry out some form of economic activity (and are therefore regarded as an enterprise’)
              YES

IF YES:

Total data of your enterprise:

Staff headcount        350                Annual turnover     45 mill €   Annual balance sheet      40 mill €

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 linked
enterprises, 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:

How many EU Member States or Associated Countries are represented in your                               /
association/grouping?

Percentage of SME                /           Percentage of other      /       Percentage of other       /
members                                      enterprises members              SME-AG members

Number of SME                    /           Number of other          /       Number of other SME-      /
members                                      enterprise members               AG members




page 29
                                       Proposal Submission
                 EUROPEAN COMMISSION                 Research for the
                7th Framework Programme on
                Research, Technological
                Development and Demonstration
                                                     benefit of SMEs
                                                     Research for SMEs
                                                                                     A2.2
Proposal 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) in         NO
this proposal? (Yes or No)
If Yes:

Participant Number                   Organisation Short Name        Character of
                                                                    dependence
Participant Number                   Organisation Short Name        Character of
                                                                    dependence
Participant Number                   Organisation Short Name        Character of
                                                                    dependence

                                                Contact points

Person in charge (For the co-ordinator (participant number 1) this person is the one who the
Commission will contact in the first instance)
Family name                         Kijowski                     First name(s)       Andrzej

Title                                                            Sex (Female – F /   M
                                                                 Male – 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 30
                                                                                                                                                    A3.1
          Proposal Number                            Proposal Acronym                    EDIPAC                     Participant number                1

          In FP7, there are different methods for calculating indirect costs. The various options are explained in the guidance notes. Please be aware that not all
          options are available to all types of organisations. Please indicate the way in which you will report your indirect costs:
          Real indirect costs           □       Special transitional flat rate □
          Simplified method              ⌧       Standard flat rate           □
          My legal entity is established in an ICPC and I shall use the lump sum funding model method [NO]

                                                                                                        Type of Activity


                                                        RTD/Innovation*       Demonstration*        Management             Other                 TOTAL
          Personnel Costs                               21 000                0                     31 250                 16 000                68 250
          Subcontracting to RTD Performers              778 000               0                     0                      0                     778 000
          Other Subcontracting                          0                     0                     0                      0                     0
          Other direct costs                            5 250                 0                     0                      9 000                 14 250
          Indirect costs                                15 750                0                     18 750                 15 000                49 500
          Lum sum, flat rate or scale-of-unit           0                     0                     0                      0                     0
                                            Total costs 820 000               0                     50 000                 40 000                910 000
          Requested EC Contribution                     615 000               0                     50 000                 40 000                705 000
          Total Receipts                                0                     0                     0                      0                     0

          * these columns should not be filled in by RTD performers as they are covered by the subcontracting of SME-AGs

          Please use as many copies of form A3.1 as necessary for the number of partners                     Form A3.1 page         1          of          9




page 31
                                                                                Proposal Submission




page 32
                           EUROPEAN COMMISSION                     Research for the
                           7th Framework Programme on              benefit of SMEs
                           Research, Technological
                           Development and Demonstration
                                                                   Research for SMEs
                                                                                                                                                    A3.1
          Proposal Number                                   Proposal Acronym                     EDIPAC                   Participant number          2

          In FP7, there are different methods for calculating indirect costs. The various options are explained in the guidance notes. Please be aware that not all
          options are available to all types of organisations. Please indicate the way in which you will report your indirect costs:
          Real indirect costs                □         Special transitional flat rate □
          Simplified method              ⌧       Standard flat rate           □
          My legal entity is established in an ICPC and I shall use the lump sum funding model method [NO]

                                                                                                              Type of Activity


                                                               RTD/Innovation*         Demonstration*     Management             Other           TOTAL
          Personnel Costs                                      8 700                   100 000            8 500                  6 000           23 200
          Subcontracting to RTD Performers                     0                       0                  0                      0               100 000
          Other Subcontracting                                 0                       0                  0                      0               0
          Other direct costs                                   2 175                   0                  0                      3 375           5 550
          Indirect costs                                       6 525                   0                  5 100                  5 625           17 250
          Lum sum, flat rate or scale-of-unit                  0                       0                  0                      0               0
          Total costs                                          17 400                  100 000            13 600                 15 000          146 000
          Requested EC Contribution                            13 050                  50 000             13 600                 15 000          91 650
          Total Receipts                                       0                       0                  0                      0               0

          * these columns should not be filled in by RTD performers as they are covered by the subcontracting of SME-AGs

          Please use as many copies of form A3.1 as necessary for the number of partners                           Form A3.1 page         2    of          9
                                                                                Proposal Submission
                           EUROPEAN COMMISSION                     Research for the
                           7th Framework Programme on              benefit of SMEs
                           Research, Technological
                           Development and Demonstration
                                                                   Research for SMEs
                                                                                                                                                    A3.1
          Proposal Number                                   Proposal Acronym                    EDIPAC                   Participant number           3

          In FP7, there are different methods for calculating indirect costs. The various options are explained in the guidance notes. Please be aware that not all
          options are available to all types of organisations. Please indicate the way in which you will report your indirect costs:
          Real indirect costs                □         Special transitional flat rate □
          Simplified method              ⌧       Standard flat rate           □
          My legal entity is established in an ICPC and I shall use the lump sum funding model method [NO]

                                                                                                             Type of Activity


                                                               RTD/Innovation*         Demonstration*    Management             Other            TOTAL
          Personnel Costs                                      15 750                  0                 4 375                  20 160           40 285
          Subcontracting to RTD Performers                     0                       0                 0                      0                0
          Other Subcontracting                                 0                       0                 0                      0                0
          Other direct costs                                   3 938                   0                 0                      11 340           15 278
          Indirect costs                                       11 812                  0                 2 625                  18 900           33 337
          Lum sum, flat rate or scale-of-unit                  0                       0                 0                      0                0
          Total costs                                          31 500                  0                 7 000                  50 400           88 900
          Requested EC Contribution                            23 625                  0                 7 000                  50 400           81 025
          Total Receipts                                       0                       0                 0                      0                0

          * these columns should not be filled in by RTD performers as they are covered by the subcontracting of SME-AGs

          Please use as many copies of form A3.1 as necessary for the number of partners                         Form A3.1 page          3     of          9




page 33
                                                                                Proposal Submission




page 34
                           EUROPEAN COMMISSION                     Research for the
                           7th Framework Programme on              benefit of SMEs
                           Research, Technological
                           Development and Demonstration
                                                                   Research for SMEs
                                                                                                                                                    A3.1
          Proposal Number                                   Proposal Acronym                    EDIPAC                   Participant number           4

          In FP7, there are different methods for calculating indirect costs. The various options are explained in the guidance notes. Please be aware that not all
          options are available to all types of organisations. Please indicate the way in which you will report your indirect costs:
          Real indirect costs                □         Special transitional flat rate □
          Simplified method              ⌧       Standard flat rate           □
          My legal entity is established in an ICPC and I shall use the lump sum funding model method [NO]

                                                                                                             Type of Activity


                                                               RTD/Innovation*         Demonstration*    Management             Other            TOTAL
          Personnel Costs                                      9 300                   0                 4 250                  6 400            19 950
          Subcontracting to RTD Performers                     167 000                 0                 0                      0                167 000
          Other Subcontracting                                 0                       0                 0                      0                0
          Other direct costs                                   2 325                   0                 0                      3 600            5 925
          Indirect costs                                       6 975                   0                 2 550                  6 000            15 525
          Lum sum, flat rate or scale-of-unit                  0                       0                 0                      0                0
          Total costs                                          185 600                 0                 6 800                  16 000           208 400
          Requested EC Contribution                            139 200                 0                 6 800                  16 000           162 000
          Total Receipts                                       0                       0                 0                      0                0

          * these columns should not be filled in by RTD performers as they are covered by the subcontracting of SME-AGs

          Please use as many copies of form A3.1 as necessary for the number of partners                         Form A3.1 page          4     of          9
                                                                                Proposal Submission
                           EUROPEAN COMMISSION                     Research for the
                           7th Framework Programme on              benefit of SMEs
                           Research, Technological
                           Development and Demonstration
                                                                   Research for SMEs
                                                                                                                                                    A3.1
          Proposal Number                                   Proposal Acronym                    EDIPAC                   Participant number           5

          In FP7, there are different methods for calculating indirect costs. The various options are explained in the guidance notes. Please be aware that not all
          options are available to all types of organisations. Please indicate the way in which you will report your indirect costs:
          Real indirect costs                □         Special transitional flat rate □
          Simplified method              ⌧       Standard flat rate           □
          My legal entity is established in an ICPC and I shall use the lump sum funding model method [NO]

                                                                                                             Type of Activity


                                                               RTD/Innovation*         Demonstration*    Management             Other            TOTAL
          Personnel Costs                                      8 850                   0                 4 062                  6 000            18 912
          Subcontracting to RTD Performers                     167 000                 0                 0                      0                167 000
          Other Subcontracting                                 0                       0                 0                      0                0
          Other direct costs                                   2 212                   0                 0                      3 375            5 587
          Indirect costs                                       6 638                   0                 2 438                  5 625            14 701
          Lum sum, flat rate or scale-of-unit                  0                       0                 0                      0                0
          Total costs                                          184 700                 0                 6 500                  15 000           206 200
          Requested EC Contribution                            138 525                 0                 6 500                  15 000           160 025
          Total Receipts                                       0                       0                 0                      0                0

          * these columns should not be filled in by RTD performers as they are covered by the subcontracting of SME-AGs

          Please use as many copies of form A3.1 as necessary for the number of partners                         Form A3.1 page          5     of          9




page 35
                                                                                Proposal Submission




page 36
                           EUROPEAN COMMISSION                     Research for the
                           7th Framework Programme on              benefit of SMEs
                           Research, Technological
                           Development and Demonstration
                                                                   Research for SMEs
                                                                                                                                                    A3.1
          Proposal Number                                   Proposal Acronym                    EDIPAC                   Participant number           6

          In FP7, there are different methods for calculating indirect costs. The various options are explained in the guidance notes. Please be aware that not all
          options are available to all types of organisations. Please indicate the way in which you will report your indirect costs:
          Real indirect costs                □         Special transitional flat rate □
          Simplified method              ⌧       Standard flat rate           □
          My legal entity is established in an ICPC and I shall use the lump sum funding model method [NO]

                                                                                                             Type of Activity


                                                               RTD/Innovation*         Demonstration*    Management             Other            TOTAL
          Personnel Costs                                      5 500                   0                 3 937                  12 600           22 037
          Subcontracting to RTD Performers                     0                       0                 0                      0                0
          Other Subcontracting                                 0                       0                 0                      0                0
          Other direct costs                                   1 375                   0                 0                      7 087            8 462
          Indirect costs                                       4 125                   0                 2 363                  11 813           18 301
          Lum sum, flat rate or scale-of-unit                  0                       0                 0                      0                0
          Total costs                                          11 000                  0                 6 300                  31 500           48 800
          Requested EC Contribution                            8 250                   0                 6 300                  31 500           46 050
          Total Receipts                                       0                       0                 0                      0                0

          * these columns should not be filled in by RTD performers as they are covered by the subcontracting of SME-AGs

          Please use as many copies of form A3.1 as necessary for the number of partners                         Form A3.1 page          6     of          9
                                                                                Proposal Submission
                           EUROPEAN COMMISSION                     Research for the
                           7th Framework Programme on              benefit of SMEs
                           Research, Technological
                           Development and Demonstration
                                                                   Research for SMEs
                                                                                                                                                    A3.1
          Proposal Number                                   Proposal Acronym                    EDIPAC                   Participant number           7

          In FP7, there are different methods for calculating indirect costs. The various options are explained in the guidance notes. Please be aware that not all
          options are available to all types of organisations. Please indicate the way in which you will report your indirect costs:
          Real indirect costs                □         Special transitional flat rate □
          Simplified method              ⌧       Standard flat rate           □
          My legal entity is established in an ICPC and I shall use the lump sum funding model method [NO]

                                                                                                             Type of Activity


                                                               RTD/Innovation*         Demonstration*    Management             Other            TOTAL
          Personnel Costs                                      0                       0                 4 500                  0                4 500
          Subcontracting to RTD Performers                     0                       0                 0                      0                0
          Other Subcontracting                                 0                       0                 0                      0                0
          Other direct costs                                   0                       0                 0                      0                0
          Indirect costs                                       0                       0                 2 700                  0                2 700
          Lum sum, flat rate or scale-of-unit                  0                       0                 0                      0                0
          Total costs                                          0                       0                 7 200                  0                7 200
          Requested EC Contribution                            0                       0                 7 200                  0                7 200
          Total Receipts                                       0                       0                 0                      0                0

          * these columns should not be filled in by RTD performers as they are covered by the subcontracting of SME-AGs

          Please use as many copies of form A3.1 as necessary for the number of partners                         Form A3.1 page         7      of          9




page 37
                                                                                Proposal Submission




page 38
                           EUROPEAN COMMISSION                     Research for the
                           7th Framework Programme on              benefit of SMEs
                           Research, Technological
                           Development and Demonstration
                                                                   Research for SMEs
                                                                                                                                                    A3.1
          Proposal Number                                   Proposal Acronym                    EDIPAC                   Participant number           8

          In FP7, there are different methods for calculating indirect costs. The various options are explained in the guidance notes. Please be aware that not all
          options are available to all types of organisations. Please indicate the way in which you will report your indirect costs:
          Real indirect costs                □         Special transitional flat rate □
          Simplified method              ⌧       Standard flat rate           □
          My legal entity is established in an ICPC and I shall use the lump sum funding model method [NO]

                                                                                                             Type of Activity


                                                               RTD/Innovation*         Demonstration*    Management             Other            TOTAL
          Personnel Costs                                      0                       0                 6 563                  0                6 563
          Subcontracting to RTD Performers                     0                       0                 0                      0                0
          Other Subcontracting                                 0                       0                 0                      0                0
          Other direct costs                                   0                       0                 0                      0                0
          Indirect costs                                       0                       0                 3 937                  0                3 937
          Lum sum, flat rate or scale-of-unit                  0                       0                 0                      0                0
          Total costs                                          0                       0                 10 500                 0                10 500
          Requested EC Contribution                            0                       0                 10 500                 0                10 500
          Total Receipts                                       0                       0                 0                      0                0

          * these columns should not be filled in by RTD performers as they are covered by the subcontracting of SME-AGs

          Please use as many copies of form A3.1 as necessary for the number of partners                          Form A3.1 page        8      of          9
                                                                                Proposal Submission
                           EUROPEAN COMMISSION                     Research for the
                           7th Framework Programme on              benefit of SMEs
                           Research, Technological
                           Development and Demonstration
                                                                   Research for SMEs
                                                                                                                                                    A3.1
          Proposal Number                                   Proposal Acronym                    EDIPAC                   Participant number           9

          In FP7, there are different methods for calculating indirect costs. The various options are explained in the guidance notes. Please be aware that not all
          options are available to all types of organisations. Please indicate the way in which you will report your indirect costs:
          Real indirect costs                □         Special transitional flat rate □
          Simplified method              ⌧       Standard flat rate           □
          My legal entity is established in an ICPC and I shall use the lump sum funding model method [NO]

                                                                                                             Type of Activity


                                                               RTD/Innovation*         Demonstration*    Management             Other            TOTAL
          Personnel Costs                                      0                       0                 3 000                  0                3 000
          Subcontracting to RTD Performers                     0                       0                 0                      0                0
          Other Subcontracting                                 0                       0                 0                      0                0
          Other direct costs                                   0                       0                 0                      0                0
          Indirect costs                                       0                       0                 1 800                  0                1 800
          Lum sum, flat rate or scale-of-unit                  0                       0                 0                      0                0
          Total costs                                          0                       0                 4 800                  0                4 800
          Requested EC Contribution                            0                       0                 4 800                  0                4 800
          Total Receipts                                       0                       0                 0                      0                0

          * these columns should not be filled in by RTD performers as they are covered by the subcontracting of SME-AGs




page 39
          Please use as many copies of form A3.1 as necessary for the number of partners                         Form A3.1 page         9      of          9
                                                                               Proposal Submission




page 40
                          EUROPEAN COMMISSION                     Research for the
                          7th Framework Programme on              benefit of SMEs
                          Research, Technological
                          Development and Demonstration
                                                                  Research for SMEs
                                                                                                                                                            A3.2
          Proposal Number                                                              Proposal Acronym                                    EDIPAC

      Number of participants (total): 9                 Number of SME-AG: 0                                     Number of RTD: 6             Number of OTH: 3
      The participants should be grouped by category – Co-ordinator is always number one

          Participant number     Organisation Type Estimated eligible costs (whole duration of the project)                                          Total          Requested EC
           in this proposal      short name                                                                                                          Receipts       contribution
                                                                RTD / Innovation               Demonstration   Management    Other        TOTAL
                   1                  PFFM            SME                      42 000                      0        50 000    40 000      910 000               0         705 000
                                                                         subc 778 000
                   2                     TT           SME                             17 400        100 000         13 600    15 000      146 000               0          91 650
                   3                  EuOp            SME                             31 500               0         7 000    50 400       88 900               0          81 025
                   4                  LeVer           SME                      18 600                      0         6 800    16 000      208 400               0         162 000
                                                                         subc 167 000
                   5                   PisC           SME                      17 700                      0         6 500    15 000      206 200               0         160 025
                                                                         subc 167 000
                   6                  Inn-R           SME                             11 000               0         6 300    31 500       48 800               0          46 050
                   7                   NUN                RTD                             0                0         7 200           0      7 200               0           7 200
                   8                    IPT               RTD                             0                0        10 500           0     10 500               0          10 500
                   9                    ITA               RTD                             0                0         4 800           0      4 800               0           4 800
          TOTAL                                                               1 250 200             100 000        112 700   167 900     1 630 800              0        1 268 250

          Total amount of subcontracting to RTD performers, excl. VAT:                                                                                1 112 000

          Maximum EC contribution = 110 % of subcontracting of RTD performers excl. VAT                                                               1 223 200
                                       Proposal Submission
                EUROPEAN COMMISSION             Research for the
                7th Framework Programme on
                Research, Technological
                Development and Demonstration
                                                benefit of SMEs
                                                Research for SMEs
                                                                               A3.2
The 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 ever
is the lowest.


                                                                          1 223 200




                                                                                             page 41
                                                                       Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                                EDIPAC
     `Part B




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 Food
Films Manufacturing




Please note that this is only an exemplar proposal that has been written
as a reference document to help SME’s format their own submissions; it
is not a real bid. The content is entirely fictional and thus it is not
possible to judge the realism of the imaginary goals, or the viability of the
concept, but to allow realistic evaluation, key assumptions have been
made around aspects such as the nature of the polymer, and risk of
contamination etc. No part of the proposal should be cut and pasted into
any other document.


                                                                                                   page 1
                                                                Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                         EDIPAC
         List




List of participants:
 Participant Number   Participant name          Participant short     Country
 & Type                                         name


 1 SME                Passive Food Films        PFFM                  UK
 (Coordinator)        Manufacturing
                      A SME manufacturer

 2 SME                Tasty Testers             TT                    Italy
                      A food testing and
                      validation organisation

 3 SME                Euro Opi                  EuOP                  Germany
                      A consumer opinion
                      organisation

 4 SME                Les Vergers               LeVer                 France
                      Fruit and vegetable
                      suppliers

 5 SME                PisciCatch                PisC                  Portugal
                      Fish supplier


 6 SME                Inno-Retail               Inn-R                 Slovakia
                      Innovative ‘green ‘
                      retailers

 7 RTD performer      National University of    NUN                   Netherlands
                      the Netherlands


 8 RTD Performer      IPT                       IPT                   Germany



 9 RTD Performer      ITA                       ITA                   Poland




page 2
                                                                           Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                                    EDIPAC
        Part B Contents




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 the
          wok programme under the relevant activity
3.2       Appropriateness of measures envisaged for the dissemination and/or exploitation of project
          results, 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




                                                                                                       page 3
                                                                                    Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                                             EDIPAC
1        Scientific /
         Technological Quality




1
              Scientific and or technological
              excellence, relevant to the
              topics/activities addressed by the call
1.1Sound concept and quality of and
   objectives
 NB Make sure that the objectives are realistic and their achievement verifiable within the project since the progress
 of 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 the
 project in order to produce marketable products, processes or services. However, the focus should be on positive
 exploitation following completion of the research.

The proposed project (EDIPAC) aims to bring a new product to the food packaging market – an edible
film material that will protect food for at least as long as traditional packaging materials but will be
cheaper, 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 upon
  white fish (important low fat source of protein) and freshly dried / sliced apple (important contribution to 5
  a 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 and
instruction; however, the packaging costs experienced by the manufacturer are often a significant element
of their final product cost. As food prices are rising across the world, the drive to reduce costs and remain
competitive is stronger than ever. The cost of the package is passed to the consumer who usually finds the
product inaccessible due to the pack and the package disposal wasteful. The nature of the pack can add
50% to the carbon footprint of the final article. Disposal and recycling problems are experienced both by
the consumer and the manufacturer and retailer, and for some packaging materials these are problematic
and expensive, both in terms of the product costs and in terms of the environmental impact of recycling or
disposal. (See EU Directive 1999/32/EC for specifications and permitted disposal methods )
page 4
                                                                              Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                                       EDIPAC
1    Scientific / Technological
     Quality




New directives are constantly being introduced to limit the use of non-
biodegradable packaging and food manufacturers and retailers are focussing on
packaging to reduce their carbon footprint. In fact, the amount of food and
packaging waste generated by UK food and drink manufacturers alone is
estimated at around 3 million tons a year. Food waste produces methane, which
is 21 times more damaging to the environment than CO2. This is replicated
across other EU nations. Therefore one key priority for the food manufacturing
and distribution industries is to send zero food packaging waste to landfill by
2015. 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 improved
storage life (if a product can be packed to avoid the need to chill then the carbon
footprint of the refrigeration stage is lowered). However there must also be
consideration to food security on an International scale, and Governments
around the world are trying to reduce food lost due to its degradation and
decomposition under storage, so it is not acceptable that lack of chilling is
accompanied by shorter storage times and /or more food waste.
There is a strong need for a low cost packaging concept that will satisfy these
essential marketing and protection requirements, yet has negligible disposal
problems. Thus the proposal is strongly sector driven. However, since this
proposed packaging material will actually be eaten, whatever advantages the
packaging has in terms of reliability, functionality and easy biodegradation there
will be no impact unless the novel packaging is accepted by the consumer(both
from an organoleptic and a practicality standpoint).
CONSUMER CONCERNS
However, in the recent past, we have seen that other technologies that can be
demonstrated to solve particular problems have been totally rejected due to
consumer refusal to purchase/consume.
In different traditional products the package outer layer can be eaten, for
instance sausages and cheese. These are part of the product not really an
external packaging material it is viewed as an essential component. However,
what the food manufacturing industry is looking for is a more general material
with different applications for a range of foods. One of these materials could be
the polymer Fantasylene and the technical development of effective edible
Fantasylene food covering material is the topic of this SME proposal – EDIPAC.
The new non-toxic coating material, Fantasylene that was initially developed for
the inert encapsulation of drugs, has proved unreliable for that application because
for the particular compounds tested it intermittently mimics the taste, texture and
                                                                                                          page 5
                                                                            Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                                     EDIPAC
1        Scientific /
         Technological Quality




aroma of the encapsulated drug compound. However, the material has been
shown to be meta-stable, being an insulator in the alpha-phase and conductive in
the beta-phase. An opportunity has been recognised to exploit this behaviour and
use a stable beta Fantasylene as an edible packaging material to be surface
coated directly onto several trial foods to form a completely edible packaging.
The material to be tested will be applied to the food during the food
manufacture/processing stage initially, since the deposition equipment is
complex and must be standardised and used by trained staff. It is not being
developed as a secondary independent wrap. Since the material is applied
immediately the food is produced and portioned there is minimal risk of microbial
contamination and hence, improved shelf life. The boundary layer and
permeability qualities of the material also ensure that the subsequent storage will
be optimised. Due to its nature it will not be able to separate the material from
the underlying food material; it is an integral part of the food and will be
consumed alongside the food, as opposed to a secondary wrapping. Therefore
considerable research is needed into the effect it will have during food
preparation and cooking; it is not yet known if it can only be applied and utilised
for foods that do not need further cooking at home. Hence the SME, Tasty
Testers (TT – 2) will perform a range of cooking trials on material prepared in the
usual way as well as food subjected to extremes of heat etc to test this aspect of
the product (By including the apple in the test they will be able to utilise and
apply results to whole apple - the film could remove the need for storage in a gas
atmosphere), apple slices and apples prepared for inclusion into baked desserts).
However, we do know from previous work (see publications) that it is entirely
edible, non toxic, lacking any discernable taste and is biodegradable
There are many technical aspects to be covered in developing the packaging film
further and the work needs to be done in an integrated manner. The breadth of
the investigation would be beyond the scope of any single SME. However,
relevant expertise can be assembled from across the EU. The SME, Plastic Food
Films Manufacturing (PFFM partner 1) will act as the overall project coordinator.
The European Public can avoid creating an annual 10,000 tonnes of plastic
waste if they were able to replace 20% of current food wrap with edible
packaging material with an edible substance. This number is derived from the EU
food industry statistical unit and represents a total extrapolated from a large
independent trans-national survey and is therefore valid.
Project participants are involved in the manufacture and packing of a carefully
selected range of foods across Europe such as fish, meat and cheese; but white
fish and apple slices were selected as examples for the project. The selection of
page 6
                                                                              Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                                       EDIPAC
1    Scientific / Technological
     Quality




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 are
commonly consumed therefore if successful, edible packs would make
significant impact upon reduction of surplus plastics for disposal.
The public awareness, dissemination, awareness raising, food preparation
techniques, acceptability tests and feed -back to the technologists will be carried
out by the Tasty Testers (TT). They are an independent SME organisation that is
contracted by manufacturers, trade associations and retailers to carry out
consumer testing leading to new product and new formulation development
across the food chain. A major part of their role in this proposal is to work with
the RTD providers and the public (consumers) to ensure ongoing dialogue
leading to consumer awareness and knowledge to maximise the acceptance of
the material before the final launch. They will also be responsible for advising on
marketing and dissemination of taste panel and preparation tests.
In order to ensure that there is an unbiased and independent evaluation, Tasty
Testers 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 public
perception issues); EuOP were central to the GM food debate and they have
strong links to the media throughout Member States. They are an SME and they
routinely 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 past
examples of technological innovation that have been developed and introduced
without prior consumer acceptance resulting in total consumer opposition and
suspicion. Therefore it is essential to engage and test to ensure that the new
product Fantasylene will be accepted by consumers. This will need to be done
on a product-by-product basis taking a specific example type (A cover
acceptable on a hard, strong Cheddar Cheese might not be accepted since the
rind is traditional; however an edible outer layer might be acceptable if it
prolongs the storage time after that block of cheese has been cut and surfaces
exposed. The same edible external material might not be acceptable on a mild
soft cheese) the edible casing for one food type might not be widely accepted by
consumers on another food. Also, the covering on a hard cheese might be too
tough for a flaky white fish. The dialogue and dissemination role will be a major
part of the project. Inno-retail (Inn-R partner 6) has worked with a number of retail
outlets across several EU countries therefore their involvement will ensure that
the 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-
                                                                                                          page 7
                                                                              Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                                       EDIPAC
1        Scientific /
         Technological Quality




thinking but small retailers who are committed to providing their outlet shops
with eco-friendly and innovative products. Their slogan is ‘for the green
consumer’ and the testing of a sustainable, edible plastic, reducing

                                                                                        NB Make sure that the
environmental impact from the sector by removing disposal issues is a logical

                                                                                        objectives are realistic
addition to their range.

                                                                                        and their achievement
Verifiable and realistic Industrial, Economic Objectives of the Fantasylene
                                                                                        verifiable within the
project
                                                                                        project since the
                                                                                        progress of the project
The prime industrial/ economic objectives are

                                                                                        will be measured
                                                                                        against these goals.
• Testing the material on selected foods and establishing usage patterns such
  that 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 the
  first 5 years)
• Reduction of food packaging and disposal costs by 70% when compared to
  the conventional range of plastics utilised currently (this is based upon current
  process – if the new polymer material is accepted widely, the cost is likely to
  fall further, thus increasing the margin of profit.)
• Increase in shelf-life of Fantasylene packaged food by 20% for the most
  perishable foods such as sliced apple and fish. This is based upon chilled
  storage of fish and is determined by standardised microbiological testing
• Reduction in refrigeration costs by 12.5% as verified by the Frozen and
  Chilled Manufacturers Association due to an increase in chilled temperature
  storage as a result of reduction in microbial loading.
• Increase in product sales/unit shelf area up by 50% due to increased
  consumer demand and increased popularity of the foods as they become
  easier for the consumer to deal with in terms of handling and preparation
• Approval by the European Food Standards Authority EFSA, which is likely to
  be a straight forward process, since the product has already been approved
  for oral consumption when applied as a coating for encapsulated drugs taken
  by mouth.
• Establishing the range of foods that can be coated having an acceptable taste
  profile for the consumer
• Defining the limitation of usage in respect to any further cooking /home
  preparation of the food




page 8
                                                                               Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                                        EDIPAC
 1     Scientific / Technological
       Quality




                                                                                         Always link these to
The societal objectives are:
                                                                                         current policy where
                                                                                         possible - increase in
• Determination of the demand from shoppers for this novel packaging

                                                                                         consumer knowledge
  material on the specific foods under test.

                                                                                         and acceptance of the
                                                                                         new packaging on
• Increased direct employment in Fantasylene manufacture by 100 jobs initially.

                                                                                         common foods
• Determine accurate statistics for quantification of replacement of conventional
  packaging material with this greener alternative in terms of demand, future
  applications to products, quantification of reduction in carbon emissions and
  cost savings.
• Increased skill level associated with its use and preparation in the food
  manufacturing sector by the establishment of a food training centre on the
  Tasty Testers test site
• Improvement in working conditions (perishable foods)
• A reduction in packaging litter (10.000 tonnes per year). thus reducing waste
  collection, land fill, greenhouse gases thus saving costs and environmental
  effects (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 to
  freely make their own decisions about acceptance of the beneficial nature of

                                                                                         A documentary study
  the edible packaging technology

                                                                                         including for example,
This proposal fits well with the relevant European policy context related to

                                                                                         literature,
reduction of landfill waste, greener produce, less food wastage (food security)
                                                                                         publications, patents
                                                                                         and data-base
and healthier population (less food spoilage) – EC 2008/20/EC

1.2 Innovative character in relation to the                                              searches. Limitations
                                                                                         of current
                                                                                         products/processes
    state-of-the-art
                                                                                         and services and
                                                                                         competing techniques
A detailed literature study reveals that food packaging is a sophisticated science

                                                                                         should be mentioned
involving numerous technologies and a variety of materials. However, it adds to

                                                                                         briefly. (Relevant
final food basket costs and waste streams (1) and this together with climate

                                                                                         references should be
change imperatives have resulted in a strong environmental lobby against the
                                                                                         provided).
use of non-degradable packaging material and a reduction in packaging volume
(2). From time to time there have been concerns about the use of plastic
materials contributing to health problems (such as reduction in fertility in males)
as a result of migration of chemicals from plastic packs

                                                                                                            page 9
                                                                                 Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                                          EDIPAC
1     Scientific /
      Technological Quality




                                                                                           Put references where
The movement across the sector to reduce the degree of secondary packaging
                                                                                           they are easily
                                                                                           accessible – same
(fewer carrier bags) has been welcomed and successfully adopted by

                                                                                           page, as foot notes, or
consumers across Europe.

                                                                                           shown at the end of
                                                                                           the document.
Edible primary food packaging would solve many of the above problems. It is
already used for cheese and sausage meats as an integral part of manufacture.
However, there are some issues with the traditional packaging; for example, strict
vegetarians do not find the use of sausage skins derived from animal intestines
to be acceptable.
A further future intention based upon the coating material that is the subject of
this proposal is to do more research in order to extend the utilisation of the edible
packaging material to class A pharmaceutical drugs; the industry has already

                                                                                           Hints: In your
taken an initial look at the possibility (4)

                                                                                           proposal, you MUST
See table 3 (page 84) for a full list of patents resulting from a detailed patent
                                                                                           differentiate between
                                                                                           1.2 and 1.3 i.e.
search

                                                                                           Innovative character
                                                                                           is not the same thing
The polymer Fantasylene was originally developed (5) by the National University

                                                                                           as Expansion of
of the Netherlands (NUN - Partner 7); they have the ability to manufacture and

                                                                                           Knowledge.
extrude the film but are not geared up to large scale manufacture. The current

                                                                                           Innovation applies to
data on characterisation of the polymer is owned and manufactured by Passive

                                                                                           new and novel
Food Film Manufacturing (PFFM - Partner 1). Designed specifically for
                                                                                           applications; whereas
                                                                                           new knowledge is the
susceptibility to de-polymerisation; Fantasylene was developed originally in

                                                                                           result of discovery of
collaboration with the Extol Corporation for drug encapsulation. It had to be

                                                                                           new facts, methods etc
withdrawn when it sporadically transmitted taste, aroma and texture of the

                                                                                           per se. and these are
enclosed medicines when they are taken orally (6). Subsequently, the compound

                                                                                           not necessarily used
has been found to exist in two forms. The amorphous crystalline form alpha

                                                                                           or applied
phase, which also has insulating properties and the rogue crystalline beta phase
which is able to transmit the properties of a substrate through its crystal lattice ().
This instability is the result of unexplained changes in the phase transformation
temperature. A stable beta Fantasylene would form an ideal edible packaging
material for food, protecting the product whilst not interfering with the sensory
taste and texture that contribute to the enjoyment of consumption and with zero
toxicity. It is not yet known how it would be affected by any subsequent cooking
process but the assumption is that this will depend on the combination of food
composition and association with the polymer. Therefore it will be dependent on
the food type and this initial work will be limited to white fish and prepared apple
slices.



page 10
                                                                                   Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                                            EDIPAC
1    Scientific / Technological
     Quality




                                                                                              An insufficient
                                                                                              description of the
These were selected as important nutrients in a healthy diet and they are an

                                                                                              international state of
excellent source of protein and fibre respectively. An edible packaging, if

                                                                                              the art and low
                                                                                              innovative content
accepted by the consumer, would encourage consumption of these foods and

                                                                                              have proved to be the
contribute to the healthy eating agenda.

                                                                                              most serious defect of
1.3 Contribution to advancement of                                                            proposals submitted
                                                                                              for evaluation so make
                                                                                              sure that you address
    knowledge / technological progress
Reusable containers and recyclable materials are starting to address                          these very carefully
sustainability 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 if
successful, this project will make an important contribution to reduction of
packaging wastes; hence indirect reduction in landfill and thus environmental
sustainability.


 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 detailed
 descriptions of tasks later described in the proposal. Graphics and diagram are often helpful for clarity but you
 should not use colour.

 Each time you present a table/graph or diagram you should cross check to ensure that the detail tallies with the
 later 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 be
 given. Their contribution to the overall project must be clear.

Main Innovations
The preliminary examination of the consumer viewpoint has shown that it would
be embraced, but testing after the compound has been developed and utilised
on specific foods will provide guidance for effective dissemination that might
potentially be used for other product applications.
In the novel application for the beta Fantasylene there are several implied
technological innovations and an optimisation process might be needed to
provide frameworks for decision-making. These are not necessarily simple, and
optimisation judgments will need to be made (just as the consortium had to
make choices to limit the food types to be coated in this work).



                                                                                                                 page 11
                                                                                  Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                                           EDIPAC
1     Scientific /
      Technological Quality




Main innovations are:
• The stabilising of beta Fantasylene at temperatures up to normal human body
  temperature by using a crystallisation process
• Invisible thin film coating of delicate or irregular shaped foods at normal
  temperature during storage and use (-24 to 40 degree C)
• Understanding the effects of the polymer coating on the properties of different
  foods
• 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 with
  specific food stuffs as they are prepared and undergo secondary cooking in
  the home
• Understand the reaction to, and acceptance of, edible food packaging by
  consumers of different nations

                                                                                            Where a particular
• Development of public understanding alongside development of the

                                                                                            proposal has a high
  technology; leading to public acceptance and subsequent gradual

                                                                                            inherent risk it is
  introduction across food types.
                                                                                            important to
                                                                                            demonstrate actions
Appraisal of Technical Risk

                                                                                            that have been / will
High risk factors for this project are:
                                                                                            be taken to minimise
                                                                                            this risk. Alternative
• Fantasylene will not be stable in the long term in order for it to be fit for

                                                                                            strategies for delivery
  purpose. This risk will be mitigated by thorough testing during storage

                                                                                            should be identified to
  conditions likely to be encountered during the storage of the foodstuffs
                                                                                            mitigate against
                                                                                            proposal failure.
• Consumption could trigger unexpected outcomes (such as allergic reaction).
  This risk will be tested by normal consumer panels and testing of the product

                                                                                            This may also be
  during trials. The material is thoroughly characterised and the composition
                                                                                            addressed under
  known. This data is necessary anyway for submission as part of the approval
                                                                                            ‘Implementation’ and
                                                                                            consortium
  dossier.

                                                                                            description.
• At this stage it is not known what the degree of influence of the actual food
  wrapped will be. There are major differences in composition, taste, texture,
  hygroscopic properties etc for different foods even those within the same
  food group.




page 12
                                                                          Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                                   EDIPAC
1    Scientific / Technological
     Quality




Medium risk factors for this project are
• There will be problem resolving the requirements for thicker films for
  product protection with the need for minimum thickness for non-detection
  and non-interference with the taste/aroma properties. The thickness
  required will be optimised during the development process and is likely to
  be a function of film properties but also the type/hardness and nature of the
  foods stuff being packed in the Fantasylene
• An alternative packaging technology is a bubble layer with protein films
  which is also used by Les Vergers in France. Les Vergers has the basic
  patents for this film and will license this for free to the partners. This
  material is not edible and will be available as an alternative packaging
  material and therefore this will not compete directly with the edible food
  film.
• Deposited coating will react with the food substrates in some unexpected
  and unexplained manner. The testing stages identified in the work
  packages will test the sample foods thoroughly but each time a new food
  type is tested there will be the need for these initial tests. There is a
  possibility that a satisfactory result on food may be destroyed when that
  food is cooked.
• Processing and raw material costs might be higher than expected. This is a
  market place factor and the costings have been carefully calculated from
  today’s commodity and labour costs. However, the product will be
  premium products and the consumer will be likely to be willing to pay a
  premium price given the considerable advantages of the packaging
• Printing resolution might be poor thus preventing adequate traceability and
  consumer information via labelling. (Printing is not a major part of this
  project and considerable work will be needed to select optimum inks. This
  is a detailed project in itself that will need to be carried out by specialist
  SME’s if the material is found to be acceptable). However, this is a separate
  project.
• There may be poor acceptance by consumers if they are not kept fully
  informed of the developments in packaging materials; hence the key role
  played by 2 SMEs EuOP and Tasty Testers. These organisations are well
  aware of consumer issues and experienced in public dialogue; this will be
  of major importance to the project. However, there has been some initial
  work done that strongly suggests that there will be very positive consumer
  acceptance of the material.

                                                                                                     page 13
                                                                                 Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                                          EDIPAC
1     Scientific /
      Technological Quality




• There is minimal risk that the overall carbon foot-print will be not be lower than with current food
  packaging/wrapping systems due to production wastage or other unforeseen difficulties despite obvious
  environmental advantages. Early stage calculations show that this is highly un-likely and the carbon
  footprint will be very carefully calculated with robust data sets available.

1.4 Quality and effectiveness of S/T methodology and
    associated 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 target
  foods
3 Product Specific manufacturing technology development – scale-up and identification, and
  addressing any specific manufacturing challenges, developing the pilot process and producing
  materials for product assessment including basic labelling (not the subject of this proposal but each
  pack will need some identification)
4 Product trials - including the preparation optimisation for the coated exemplar foods under test and
  their 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 in
  normal way and cooked as specified in work package 4. Changes in patterns of consumer acceptance
  monitored both by measuring opinion before and after tasting tests etc
6 Consortium co-ordination - this will be continuous throughout
  the 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 a
 Gantt chart or similar
 Detailed work descriptions, broken down into packages, should be shown. The number of work packages MUST be
 appropriate to the complexity of the work and the overall value of the proposed proposal. The planning must be
 sufficiently detailed to justify the effort and costs and allow progress monitoring by the Commission
 Timing and sequence of delivery of the different WPs and their components should be shown using a Gantt chart /
 PERT chart or similar
 In the work packages always quantify where you can e.g. ‘50 samples’ rather than ‘a number of samples’ in order to
 demonstrate the magnitude of the activity.




page 14
          Figure 1 Timeline of Deliverables /                                                                                                                      1
          Work packages
                                                                                                                                                                   Quality



                                                                                                               Yr 1 - Months                  Yr 2 - Months
           Task Name                                                                                 01   02           03      04   01   02           03      04

           WP1 - Characterisation of Fantasylene
           1.1 Literature review
           1.2 Provide samples and manufacture beta compound in quantities for testing
           1.3 Food storage, handling and preparation for coating
           1.4 Polymer characterisation & production
           WP2 - Deposition Process Development
           2.1 & 2 Supply and prepare fish
           2.3 Develop coating technology
           WP3 - Product specific manufacturing technology development
           3.1 Develop transportation mechanism
           3.2 Develop surface treatment
                                                                                                                                                                   Scientific / Technological




           3.3 Integrate unit processes
           3.4 Set up deposition tanks
           3.5 Integrated plant operation and optimisation runs
           WP4 - Product trials
           4.1 Initial consumer views
           4.2 Examine food surface properties initial and coated
           4.3 Cooking trials uncoated/coated fish
           4.4 Chilling trials coated/uncoated apples
           4.5 Chilling trials coated /uncoated fish
           4.6 Market acceptance statistics - initial opinions
           4.7 Shelf life trials
           4.8 Collation of all retail and storage data
           WP5 - Consumer Acceptance / Dissemination Activity
           5.1 Initial consumer views (collected in WP4) analysed & collated
           5.2 & 3 Optimum conditions for commercial handling, storage & distribution
           determined and distributed to all distributors & retail outlets stocking fish and apple
           5.4 & 5 Sales figures monitored for fish and apple products
           5.6 Collation and analysis of all retail & storage data, customer feedback etc to
                formulate product & national/regional consumer acceptance information
           WP6 - Project management and coordination
           6.1 Consortium Management Team in place
           6.2 Consortium process and procedure manual
           6.3 Financial recording mechanisms established
           6.4 Mid-term assessment report
           6.5 Final Process report and documentation
                                                                                                                                                                                              EDIPAC
                                                                                                                                                                     Research for the benefit of SMEs




page 15
       Table 1.4 a: Work package list




page 16
                                                                                                                        1
          Work    Work package       Type of activity                    Lead        Lead        Person Start   End
          package title                                                  Participant participant months month   month
          No.                                                            No.         short name
          WP 1    Characterisation   RTD: Specification of properties    7          NUN          54    0        15
                  of Fantasylene     of material
                                                                                                                        Scientific /




          WP 2    Deposition         RTD: Specification of coating       8&9        IPT / ITA    42    3        17
                  process            process/scale up/application to
                  development        food types

          WP 3    Product specific   RTD: Manufacturing                  9          ITA          79    4        20
                  manufacturing      development
                                                                                                                        Technological Quality




                  technology
                  development

          WP 4    Product trials     DEM: Preparation of coated          2          TT           10    2        22
                                     foods testing Specification of
                                     conditions for storage of coated
                                     foods and domestic (consumer
                                     preparation/cooking)

          WP 5    Consumer           DEM: Trans National testing          3         EuOp         25    0        24
                  acceptance /       programme to check acceptability of
                  dissemination      selected products; aid consumer
                  activity           understanding and consumer
                                     education, collection of usage data,
                                     training consumer in utilisation

          WP 6    Project        MGT: Management                         1          PFFM         17    1        24
                  management and
                  coordination
                                                                                           TOTAL 227
                                                                                                                                                   EDIPAC
                                                                                                                          Research for the benefit of SMEs
          Table 1.4 b: Deliverables List                                                                                              1
          Always check dates against work programme list and avoid excessive number of deliverables: hint- deliverables
                                                                                                                                      Quality

          must be notified to the REA immediately – avoid excess in this regard

          Deliverable          Deliverable title                                         WP no.     Nature Dissemination   Delivery
          number                                                                                           level           date

          1.1                  Literature review                                         1          R         PU           2


          1.2                  Provide samples and manufacture beta                      1          P         PP           10
                               compound in quantities for testing and
                               characterisation
          1.3                  Food storage. handling and preparation for                1          P         PP           8
                                                                                                                                      Scientific / Technological




                               coating (fish and apples)

          1.4                  Polymer characterisation and production                   1          P         PP           15


          2.1                  Supply and prepare fish                                   2          O         RE           6


          2.2                  Supply and prepare apples                                 2          O         RE           6


          2.3                  Develop coating technology                                2          P         PP           17


          3.1                  Develop transportation mechanism                          3          P         PP           6


          3.2                  Develop surface treatment                                 3          D         RE           8
                                                                                                                                                                 EDIPAC
                                                                                                                                        Research for the benefit of SMEs




page 17
          Deliverable   Deliverable title                                  WP no.   Nature Dissemination   Delivery
          number                                                                           level           date




page 18
                                                                                                                      1
          3.3           Integrate unit processes, deposition trials and    3        P      RE              6
                        integration

          3.4           Set up deposition trials                           3        P      RE              3
                                                                                                                      Scientific /




          3.5           Integrated plant operation and optimisation runs   3        D      RE              20


          4.1           Initial consumer views                             5        O      PU              2


          4.2           Examine food surface properties initial and        4        D      RE              18
                                                                                                                      Technological Quality




                        coated for fresh and stored foods

          4.3           Cooking trials uncoated /coated fish               4        O      PU              12


          4.4           Chilling trials uncoated /coated apples            4        O      PU              18


          4.5           Chilling trials coated and uncoated fish           4        O      PU              18


          4.6           Market acceptance statistics – initial opinions    4        R      RE              20


          4.7           Shelf life trials                                  4        P      RE              20


          4.8           Collation of all retail and storage data           4        R      RE              22


          5.1           Initial consumer views (collected in WP4)          5        D      PU              2
                        analysed & collated
                                                                                                                                                 EDIPAC
                                                                                                                        Research for the benefit of SMEs
          Deliverable   Deliverable title                                     WP no.   Nature Dissemination   Delivery
          number                                                                              level           date          1
          5.2 & 5.3     Optimum conditions for commercial handling,           5        D      PU              19
                        storage & distribution determined and
                                                                                                                            Quality


                        disseminated to all distributors and retail outlets
                        stocking fish and apple products
          5.4 & 5.5     Sales figures monitored for fish and apple            5        D      PU              21
                        products


          5.6           Collation & analysis of all retail & storage data,    5        R      RE              24
                        customer feedback etc to formulate product &
                        national/regional consumer acceptance
                        information
          6.1           Consortium Management Team in place and               6        O      PU              1
                                                                                                                            Scientific / Technological




                        financial reporting procedures


          6.2           Consortium process and procedure manual               6        O      PP              2




          6.3           Financial recording mechanisms established            6        O      CO              2




          6.4           Mid-term assessment report                            6        R      PP              12




          6.5           Final Process report and documentation                6        R      PP              Project end
                                                                                                                                                       EDIPAC
                                                                                                                              Research for the benefit of SMEs




page 19
                                                               Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                        EDIPAC
1     Scientific /
      Technological Quality




Project PERT Diagram (Fig 2)




                                      Characterisation of
     Initial Consumer Opinion
                                        Fantasylene ®
                WP4
                                            WP1




                                                                                           Project Management - WP6
                                                                   Food sample -
          Product Development      Food sample - preparation          coating
                  WP4                       WP2                        WP2




    Product trials - storage and     Pilot transportation &
             handling                 Packaging process
                WP4                           WP3




           Process Definition
                 WP5




page 20
                                                                              Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                                       EDIPAC
1   Scientific / Technological
    Quality




Table 1.4 c: Work package description
Provide a general overview of allocation of resources by partners.

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

Objectives
O1.1 To fully understand the properties of the novel food coating polymer Fantasylene in all of its forms
O1.2 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 and
          electron microscopy to ascertain the phase transformation temperatures
        - Analyse each of the distribution samples for surface properties by scanning electron
          microscopy
        - 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 and
3 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 for
developing 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 structure
so that a consistent set of materials samples can be forwarded for atomisation and coating
development trials
Understand how this material performs when coated onto the test foods
                                                                                                         page 21
                                                                          Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                                   EDIPAC
1       Scientific /
        Technological Quality




Deliverables
1.1 -   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
Milestone
M1.1: Materials Science – Month 6

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


Objectives
O2.1: 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 electrostatic
          deposition using the polymer produced in work package 1 and the food samples produced in
          this work package

Description of work
T2.1 - 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, both
             with and without the coatings normally applied to enhance the visual appearance. Samples
             of 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 microns
at 2 micron intervals




page 22
                                                                              Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                                       EDIPAC
1     Scientific / Technological
      Quality




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 required
          can be re-circulated


Deliverables
2.1     Supply and prepare fish – Month 6
2.1    Supply and prepare apples – Month 6
2.3    Develop coating technology – Month 17
Milestones
M2.1 - 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


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 optimum
       deposition and surface treatment.
O3.3   Integrate the various aspects of this work package to produce an overall pilot process for the
       coating 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)




                                                                                                            page 23
                                                                              Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                                       EDIPAC
1     Scientific /
      Technological Quality




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 tests
such that they will be able to receive a consistent coasting of 10 micron thickness. The food handling
must 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 will
have been deposited in the beta form) to the alpha phase to a depth of 0.001 microns. The underlying
food 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 and
surface 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 fitness
for purpose, reproducibility and reliability
T3.6 Labelling
Ensure that it is possible to label the external film layer with basic legal label

Deliverables
3.1     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


Milestones
M3.1 - 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




page 24
                                                                                   Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                                            EDIPAC
1      Scientific / Technological
       Quality




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




It may appear risky to evaluators to have only 1 partner involved, so justification should be clear in the
implementation section.


Objectives
O4.1    To examine the likely consumer reaction at the start of the work before the scientific
        development is completed
O4.2    Specify the methodology optimised for the coating process of the prepared foods and food
        into process development trials (WP3)
O4.3    To test the coating conditions and to conduct consumer taste trials once the optimum has
        been established
O4.4    To gather storage data (times and conditions) after the novel film is produced, tested and
        utilised for 2 example food stuffs


Description of work
T4.I    Initial consumer introduction and theoretical acceptance views
T4.2    Measure dual surface coating thickness, phase, composition and durability (including stability
        for 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 pilot
        batches) 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)



                                                                                                              page 25
                                                                          Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                                   EDIPAC
1      Scientific /
       Technological Quality




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. The
  standard PROMOTE method will be used to assess the new product. Euro Opi will also be heavily
  involved bringing their experience of dealing with public perception of arrange of scientific
  innovations 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 be
  tested using standard microbiological storage profiles s well as water content and measure of
  external appearance.
T4.7: Shelf life trials
Batches will be analyses chemically, microbiologically and by appearance after 1,2,5,10,15 and 30
days 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 the
untreated control. Hence a score of say 13 is a considerable improvement over the control but a score
of 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 the
complete audit trial

Deliverables
4.1     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


Milestones
M4.1 - Initial consumer interaction – Month 3
M4.2 - Optimal Storage time/conditions identified
M4.3 - Optimum domestic storage preparation determined


page 26
                                                                         Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                                  EDIPAC
1      Scientific / Technological
       Quality




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 to
        retest after the material has been optimised
O5.2    Specify the methodology optimised for large scale distribution and handling of the prepared
        foods
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 consumer
        concerns / 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 to
        retest views
T5.2    Detailed commercial distribution, storage and handling methodology and conditions
        determined for range of coated fresh fish products
T5.3    Detailed commercial distribution, storage and handling methodology determined for range of
        apple 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 and
        determine if any regional /national differences
All data will be audited and validated by EuOP to ensure accuracy and lack of bias and to confirm the
complete audit trial




                                                                                                    page 27
                                                                          Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                                   EDIPAC
1     Scientific /
      Technological Quality




Deliverables
5.1     Initial consumer views (Collected in WP 4) analysed and collated – Month 2
5.2       Optimum conditions for commercial handling, storage and distribution determined and
          disseminated to all distributors and retail outlets stocking fish products – Month 19
5.3       Optimum conditions for commercial handling, storage and distribution determined and
          disseminated 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 formulate
          product and national /regional consumer acceptance information – Month 24


Milestones
M5.1 - 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 on
       fish 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 the
          communication channel for all dialogue with the Commission
O6.3      Establish an effective project management structure incorporating the management teams
          detailed 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.

page 28
                                                                           Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                                    EDIPAC
1   Scientific / Technological
    Quality




O6.6    Set up and manage financial accounting records and reporting mechanisms including the
        website 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 the
        individual work packages and technical activities, enabling full project reporting of deliverables
        and milestones to be compiled.
•       Co-ordinate all knowledge management, dissemination activities (implement the dissemination
        and 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 contractual
        obligations. This will include overall legal, administrative and Consortium Agreement
        maintenance 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 via
        the 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 and
        implement monitoring activities to ensure the project is delivered as planned.
•       Implement reporting structures in terms of communication, decision making, dispute
        resolution and reporting requirements including those to the Consortium Steering Group
        management team.
•       Constant monitoring and communication to ensure any necessary changes to the project plan
        are managed correctly.
                                                                                                      page 29
                                                                         Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                                  EDIPAC
1     Scientific /
      Technological Quality




Task 6.3: Financial Management
•         Set up and manage all financial records and mechanisms to ensure comprehensive audit trails
          exist for all project spending and fund management activities.
•         Provide outputs to the Consortium Steering Group management team for inclusion in
          communications to the Commission.
•         Ensure all project consortium members maintain and retain the required financial records and
          provide 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 for
          the second half of the project.
•         Coordinate the exploitation strategy.




page 30
          Table 1.4 d: Summary of staff effort                                                                                                            1
          Participant &      Part 1:   Part 2:   Part 3:   Part 4:   Part 5:   Part 6:   Part 7:   Part 8:   Part 9:   Total   Total   Total   TOTAL
          short name         PFFM      TT        EuOP      LeVer     PisC      Inn-R     NUN       IPT       ITA       SMEs    RTDP    Other   All
                             (SME)     (SME)     (SME)     (SME)     (SME)     (SME)     (RTD)     (RTD)     (RTD)                             Partners
                                                                                                                                                          Quality


          Research and
          innovation
          activities-total
          WP1                2                                                           41                  11        2       52              54


          WP2                2         1         1         3         3         1         3         14        14        11      31              42


          WP3                3         2         4                             1         15        20        34        10      69              79
                                                                                                                                                          Scientific / Technological




          Demonstration
          activities-total

          WP4                0         10        0         0         0         0                                       10                      10


          WP5                6         2         8         2         2         5                                       25                      25




          Management
          Activities -
          total
          WP6                8         2         1         1         1         1         1         1         1         14                      17


                             21        17        14        6         6         8         60        35        60                                227
                                                                                                                                                                                     EDIPAC
                                                                                                                                                            Research for the benefit of SMEs




page 31
                                                                                  Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                                           EDIPAC
1     Scientific /
      Technological Quality




Table 1.4e: List of milestones
 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 next
 phase of work to commence. Another example of a milestone is a point when the consortium must decide which of
 several possible technologies to adopt for further development

Milestone        Milestone                    Work    Expected Means of Verification
number           Description               package(s)   Date
                                            involved
M1.1             Initial consumer          4              Month 3       Tools developed for testing. Public
                 interaction                                            views obtained at start

M1.2             Materials Science         1              Month 6       Ability to manufacture batches of 25kg
                                                                        as required

M2.1             Deposition Process        2              Month 17      Samples coated effectively to desired
                 technology                                             specification as required for each food
                                                                        type
M3.1             Pilot Process             3              Month 20      Plant up and running. Consistent
                                                                        samples available for consumer
                                                                        testing.
M3.2             Process manual            3              Month 24      Manual available (draft) and costings
                                                                        calculated

M4.1             Product trials ;          4              Month 20      Consumer tests delivered
                 preparation;
                 domestic storage
M 5.1            Consumer                  5              Month 22
                 acceptance

M6.1             Management/financia 6                    Month 2       Consortium working effectively; all
                 l tools setup                                          partners delivering at date. Scheduled
                                                                        meetings 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 communications
                                                                        delivered effectively according to
                                                                        deadlines
page 32
                                                                                  Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                                           EDIPAC
2      Implementation




2               Implementation
2.1 Quality of the consortium as a whole

 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 to
 adopt individual positional requirements in order to optimise efficiency and ensure success. But a team entirely
 made up of goalkeepers would be unsuitable!!

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 consumer
acceptance of the technology goes hand in hand with the technical activities. In this way, there is no
danger that the technology would be developed but not adopted commercially. Les Vergers and
PisciCatch 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 technology
must be robust, repeatable, and economic IPT and ITA are 2 RTD performers who are experienced at
taking novel innovation from the food manufacturing process and developing standard ‘production line’
methodologies; working alongside the research base and commercial manufacturers. IPT have a wide
experience of development of manufacturing processes for a range of food manufacturing applications
- including integration and process control. They frequently work with ITA who are equipment
manufacturers with special expertise in the design of food grade machinery for hygienic operation and
Cleaning 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 management
structure as illustrated in Fig 3


 You should present the profile of each consortium member specifying name/size/range of business
 activities/contractual role in project/degree of involvement and qualifications for this role.




                                                                                                               page 33
       Figure 3 - Management Organisation Chart




page 34
                                                                                                  2        Implementation




                              Steering          Management              Advisory
                             Committee            Board                  Group




                                                Coordinator -
                                                   PFFM




             TT       EuOP               PisC                   LeVer              Inn-R
                                                                                           SMEs




                                IPT                 NUN                   ITA




                                         RTD Performers
                                                                                                                           EDIPAC
                                                                                                  Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                          Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                                   EDIPAC
2     Implementation




                                                                                     Ensure the
The Managing Director of PFFM will act as ‘chairman’ of the management
                                                                                     organisational
                                                                                     structures and
board. Its responsibility will be to ensure that the correct procedures are

                                                                                     decision-making
carried out and all deadlines and obligations are met. Seeking consensus on

                                                                                     mechanisms are
project steering, and, in the case of dispute, decisions will be taken by

                                                                                     directly related to
majority vote with the SME’s and the main research provider each having 3

                                                                                     the complexity of the
votes, and the research sub-contractors having 1 vote. Further arrangements

                                                                                     project and the
(representation, delegation and quorum, deputy project co-ordination etc) will
                                                                                     required
be defined in the consortium agreement that will be signed by all partners and
                                                                                     integration. Link the
                                                                                     project management
contractors at the start of the project.

                                                                                     with potential of the
The project co-ordinator will be responsible for the execution of the work

                                                                                     project to reach its
programme, communication with the EC, technical and commercial reporting,
                                                                                     goals
delegation of work packages, motivation of the team, encouragement of

                                                                                     The decision-
creativity, correct problem-solving procedures and corrective actions.

                                                                                     making mechanisms
                                                                                     must be outlined
The project co-ordinator will be John Bigg of Passive Food Film

                                                                                     and tailored to the
Manufacturing. He has a chemistry degree and has worked in the area of

                                                                                     scale of the project
polymeric materials for 5 years before joining the food manufacturing sector

                                                                                     with distinct
and working on food packaging technologies. Following this experience he
                                                                                     responsibilities for
completed a MBA and becoming a senior project manager for a plastics
                                                                                     both strategic and
                                                                                     daily operational
manufacturing company, a position that he held for 4 years. Whilst in the food

                                                                                     matters defined
industry he was responsible for setting up a teaching company scheme with a
London University and the setting up of a small in-house testing facility A
                                                                                     The establishment of
                                                                                     steering committees
Teaching Company Scheme (TCS). PFFM will also provide all the necessary

                                                                                     and advisory boards
administrative and secretarial support for the project as well as project

                                                                                     is worth
management software. The other key SME’s involved include consumer-

                                                                                     consideration, but
facing organisation Euro Opi they will ensure the active dissemination of the

                                                                                     they should be
results of the work across all participating countries.

                                                                                     appropriate and not
                                                                                     overly complex.
Task leaders will be designated for materials science, deposition technology,
to represent the food manufacturers/processors and to co-ordinate the retail
product outlet. Euro Opi and Inno-Retail will together appoint an Exploitation
Manager. Task groups will meet regularly under the chairmanship of the Task
Leaders. There is a need for totally independent expertise in dealing with
public perception of Scientific Innovation and therefore a role is included for
them. EuOP have been involved in high profile issues such as stem cells,
genetic modification and nuclear power. This will ensure that the concept of
the science itself, as well as the product applications, are communicated to
the general public and their acceptability will be tested fairly and
independently. There is a need for a food expert in a way that parallels those
methods that might be used in the home. Tasty Testers are a SME that works
with the food industry on new product
                                                                                                      page 35
                                                                          Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                                   EDIPAC
2         Implementation




                                                                                    You must demonstrate
development (NPD) and is very experienced in developing recommendations
                                                                                    that the co-ordinator
                                                                                    is experienced and
for preparation as well as preparation of standard samples for consumer taste

                                                                                    qualified for the
trials.

                                                                                    complex management
An interactive IT based internal communication platform will be launched at

                                                                                    task. Do not
the inaugural meeting (hosted by the Co-ordinators) this will be the main
                                                                                    underestimate the role
                                                                                    of management which
vehicle for communication and discussion outside of the regular consortium

                                                                                    can account for up to
meetings. It will allow interactive amendment to documentation, discussion of

                                                                                    6% of project costs
results and will be structured to permit monitoring of progress of each work

                                                                                    and personnel time.
package.

                                                                                    Remember to include
                                                                                    details of the
There will be quick links to associated EU programmes and to specialist food

                                                                                    communication plan.
manufacturing, packaging and consumer facing sites in each Member State.

                                                                                    An SME that has
                                                                                    never participated in a
                                                                                    Framework project is
• Monitoring and progress reporting

                                                                                    unlikely to have the
                                                                                    experience to act in a
The co-ordinator will visit partner and research locations. A brief summary

                                                                                    co-ordination role.
monthly report from each work package leader to the co-ordinator (using an
agreed template) will describe achievements (deliverables) and corrective
actions. Formal 6 monthly reporting to the EC will be the responsibility of the
co-ordinator. Project management software will be used and all reports made
available to partners on the platform or on diskette. A project web-site will be
developed within 4 weeks of the start of the project; this will have an open
access 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 for
updating the exploitation plan and organising the protection of IPR. This will
be kept under regular review at the formal meetings as the work proceeds.




page 36
                                                                      Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                               EDIPAC
2     Implementation




2.1.2 Description of the consortium


Organisation          Type        Country    Business Activity               Role in Project

Passive Food          SME         UK         SME manufacturer of food Overall co-ordinator;
Films                                        coatings and packaging.    packaging material
Manufacturing                                Participant in 3 former EU manufacturer
(PFFM)                                       FP 5 and FP 6 projects
Tasty Testers (TT)    SME         Italy      SME expert in food              Coordination of
                                             preparation for New             marketing and
                                             Product development             consumer trials during
                                             including consumer              experimental
                                             interface                       development stage.
                                                                             Optimisation of
                                                                             cooking methods for
                                                                             coated foods.
Euro Opi (EuOP)       SME         Germany    Opinion former and              Non- governmental
                                             gatherer                        organisation
Les Vergers (LeVer) SME           France     Supplier of fruits and          Food Supplier and
                                             vegetables                      produce storage expert
PisciCatch (PisC)     SME         Turkey     Supplier of fish and fish       Fish supplier,
                                             products                        preparation, freezing,
                                                                             storage etc
Inno-Retail (Inn-R)   SME         Slovakia   Food sales and                  Innovative Retail chain
                                             Distribution
National University RTD           Holland    Teaching and research           Developer of materials
of Netherlands      Performer                                                science
(NUN)
IPT                 RTD           Germany    Product engineering             Developer integrated
                    Performer                research and processing         thin film coating
                                                                             processing line
ITA                   RTD         Poland     Food Processing and             Development and scale
                      Performer              Packaging equipment             up of deposition and
                                             manufacturer                    general food
                                                                             processing equipment.
                                                                             Whole process
                                                                             operation and cleaning.
                                                                             Hygienic equipment
                                                                             design



                                                                                                 page 37
                                                                              Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                                       EDIPAC
2         Implementation




                                                                                        (Keep to maximum 3
                                                                                        pages plus ½ page per
Passive Food Film Manufacturing PFFM (1) is a European SME with its HQ

                                                                                        partner)
in the UK and offices in Brussels and Germany... It has 25 staff in the UK and
another 10 who are based around the EU. PFFM has been active in the

                                                                                        Ensure that you
European research arena for the past 15 years and has extensive experience

                                                                                        explain how all
of both participating in and coordinating large scale Trans-European R & D

                                                                                        participants and end-
projects. It is strong on dissemination activities, allowing it to share and
                                                                                        users are well suited
                                                                                        and are committed to
develop ideas collectively. It is also very experienced in ensuring that it is fully

                                                                                        the tasks assigned to
briefed on legislation that is pertinent to its activity, such as the EU safe

                                                                                        them and also in a
packaging exempted materials listing and the various disposal directives. In

                                                                                        position to exploit the
order to deliver on this it has a strong legal team and is in regular contact with

                                                                                        results.
legislators and regulatory bodies in the EC and across member states.


                                                                                        When describing the
Tasty Testers (TT) (2) is a SME that works as a contractor for food

                                                                                        consortium, remember
manufacturers and distributors based in Italy, and have 135 employees. It

                                                                                        the complementary
represents a bridge between the manufacturers and commercial food

                                                                                        balance of the entire
processing, and the consumer who will prepare and cook the food, by defining
                                                                                        consortium as well as
                                                                                        describing individual
optimum cooking regimes for labels. It works closely with the social science

                                                                                        members.
staff at Milan University who are developing academic models for optimising
the understanding of new innovations across the food chain, it also conducts
practical consumer panels and testing as well as opinion surveys by a number
of different techniques and feeds the results to its commercial clients who use
the data to make commercial decisions regarding supply in their outlets. The
SME is about to expand into the Nordic countries and thus the potential
market for the edible packaging being developed in this project could be
extended following consumer trials here (Specially relevant for fish packing).
Euro-Opi (EuOP) (3) is the consumer organisation in the consortium; it
represents the leading opinion - forming organisations across Europe;
together they have huge media coverage and are respected for giving
consumers an independent view of new innovations. The total trans-European
membership of these organisations exceeds 2 million consumers, they have
39 staff in the German HQ of Euro-Opi and approximately another 44
scattered across the other member states. They work with many local
Universities and have large numbers of trained individuals who can be called
upon on a casual basis to conduct specialist taste trials; they also have
experience of recruiting and conducting random consumer trials.




page 38
                                                                              Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                                       EDIPAC
2      Implementation




Les Vergers (LeVer) (4) is a French SME with 35 employees, it is a wholesale
supplier of fruit and vegetables into France and for export. It is interested in
protective, non-intrusive packaging to improve the product life-cycle but has
no R&D facilities. It will benefit from reduced packaging volume and enhanced
product life. Its role is to provide prepared samples prior to coating and testing
treated products
PisciCatch (PisC) (5) is a Portuguese SME with 87 employees, which
processes and distributes fish to retail outlets in Portugal, Spain and France
using refrigeration, freezing and canning. It wishes to extend its market share
by extending into fresh fish markets. They will be responsible for selection and

                                                                                        RTD performers
provision of prepared samples for coating trials and for their subsequent
consumer testing

                                                                                        Explain clearly why
                                                                                        the RTD performers,
Inno-Retail (Inn-R) (6) owns a small group of mini-markets in various regions

                                                                                        all of whom must have
of Slovakia. It has the equivalent of 52 full time employees concerned with

                                                                                        a high degree of
distribution and retail sales of food stuffs to the tourist trade in coastal holiday

                                                                                        scientific excellence
resorts and will provide ideal data sets of acceptance in a market-place

                                                                                        and complement each
accessed by tourists of a number of nationalities and tastes. Inno-Retail is
                                                                                        other, were selected to
renowned for its innovative new product range and has been amongst the first
                                                                                        carry out the work and
                                                                                        describe the
chain to introduce other product innovations, such as phyto-sterols. Edible

                                                                                        competence of the
packaged food will give it a lead over the major supermarket chains and will

                                                                                        principal research
be able to command a price premium due to expected additional storage life.

                                                                                        personnel.

                                                                                        The SME must have a
National University of the Netherlands (NUN - 7) is a large prestigious

                                                                                        clear strategic or
University in the Netherlands. It has a world-class chemistry department,
                                                                                        commercial interest in
                                                                                        achieving results to
within which there is large European-leading research teams who are experts

                                                                                        benefit their
in material science and have previously led a large EU material coat

                                                                                        businesses.
consortium. This work will have Professor Strongfellow follow as co-ordinator;
he will ensure that the staff engaged will have time and facilities to deliver on

                                                                                        It is always advisable
this project. Prof Strongfellow’s team will consist of 3 experts in engineering
                                                                                        to seek research sub-
and manufacturing as well as equipment design as well as up to 7 technician
                                                                                        contractors who
                                                                                        already have the
support staff- one of whom will be designated chief technician for the project.

                                                                                        durable equipment
                                                                                        required by the project




                                                                                                          page 39
                                                                                   Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                                            EDIPAC
2         Implementation




IPT (8) is a German product engineering company; that is focused on the development and deposition
of integrated food production lines. They have been established for over 20 years and are continually
working on new deposition techniques for novel materials developed by partner Universities. Many of
the coating they use in the lines are destined for coating foods and drugs. The technologies that they
use include spray coating and plastic moulding/deposition. They will assist the University in application
of the film top the foods (dealing with possible irregular shapes/ensuring material covers food with a
regular/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 packaging
equipment and has expertise in hygienic design and cleaning of food manufacturing lines. They are a
respected company, favoured by many European retailers for the design and robust operation of their
equipment and have been established for 50 years and currently employ 350 staff. Their expertise
extends to producing equipment that will operate under sterile / near sterile conditions. Each piece of
equipment 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 coating
developments discovered and they will work with the partners to ensure that the equipment developed
can 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 partnership
 from a global point if view.
 Ensure that the cost breakdown is well structured and corresponds to the activities to be implemented by each
 partner.
 Show how the SME will provide the resources to execute and exploit the project findings
 The purchase of durable equipment including computing and other facilities is not recommended unless absolutely
 essential. It can cause problems of ownership and can only be financed in part by the Commission using a formula
 based upon amortisation and utilisation.
 Demonstrate clearly how the consortium intends to distribute the EC contribution among all partners and how the
 EC contribution to other enterprises and end-users will be used by the consortium. Demonstrate adequate
 resources for the SME to exploit the findings after the project is completed. IF any sub-contractors other than RTD
 performers are used, justify this. Also if any intended partner is outside the EU but is not an Associate Country nor
 are they on the list of ‘International Co-operation Partner Countries’ explain why their funding would be essential
 in terms of the project objectives.




page 40
                                                                              Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                                       EDIPAC
2      Implementation




The total costs for this project are estimated at 1.630.800 euro, differentiated
into the following cost categories:

                    Own            Subcontracting to        Sub total     % of
                                   RTD - performers                       total
 RTD                138,200        1,112,000                1,250,200     77

 Demonstration      100,000                                               6

 Management         112,700                                               7

 Other              167,900                                               10

The total value of the EC-contribution is calculated at 1,268,250 euro.
                                                                                        Link WP descriptions /
                                                                                        summary staff effort
The table below gives an overview of the person months that will be spent by

                                                                                        and costs tying both
the different project partners for the different activities research,

                                                                                        together: both internal
demonstration, management and other activities like training and

                                                                                        SME and contract
dissemination.
                                                                                        invoice distribution of
                                                                                        costs.
The RTD-performers perform the major part of the R&D, demonstration and
training activities. The SMEs will provide the necessary food products and test
the packaging. The dissemination of the knowledge will specifically be
arranged by Euro-Opi and Inno-Retail. There will be a constant interaction
between the SMEs and the RTD-performers.

                                                                                        Include for each task,
It would appear that the demonstration activities are low but they are, in fact,

                                                                                        the list of deliverable
supplemented by strong consumer-facing inputs that are described
                                                                                        items, indicating type,
                                                                                        content, and timing,
separately.

                                                                                        including, for example,
The non-labour costs consist of travel expenses and costs of equipment

                                                                                        software codes,
and materials.
                                                                                        experimental results,
                                                                                        laboratory
Project summary

                                                                                        demonstrations,
 Total project costs:                                   1,630,800
Total costs for RTD:                                    1,250,200                       prototype products etc.
                                                                                        A deliverable is the
                                                                                        output or end product
Total costs for demonstration:                          100,000

                                                                                        from a task or series of
Total costs for management                              112,700

                                                                                        tasks
Total costs for other activities                        167,900

                                                                                        A milestone is a stage
Total value EC-contribution:                            1,268,250
                                                                                        in the project where a
                                                                                        decision can be made
Total subcontracting to RTD-performers:                 1,112,000

                                                                                        on the status of the
Max. EC-contribution (110% subcontract)                 1,223,200

                                                                                        project or the quantity
                                                                                        of the achievements
Funding rate:                                           75%
          EXAMPLE Table 2.2a Estimated Cost Breakdown for the – EDIBLE




page 42
                             FOOD PACKAGING PROJECT
                                                                                                                                                                            2
          This is a duplicate table provided to demonstrate how the final figures are calculated. The actual submission requirement is as specified in
          the Commission guidelines and given below as table 2.2


                                  RTD activities                        Demonstration                 Management             Other activities               Totals

                       Own           Subcon      EC contr’n      Own       Subcon EC-contr.         Costs        EC-        Costs        EC-        Costs      EC-contr’n
                                                                                                                contr’n                 contr.
          (1) PFFM     42,000      778.000      615.000                                           50.000      50.000       40.000     40.000     910.000       705.000
                                                                                                                                                                                     Implementation




          (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    208.400       162.000
                                                                                                                           16.000
          (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    48.800        46.050
                                                                                                                           31.500
          (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      100,000 50,000         112,700     112,700      167,900    167,900    1,630,800     1,268,250




      The maximum EC-contribution is 1,223,200 (110% of the subcontracted R&D)
                                                                                                                                                                                                     EDIPAC
                                                                                                                                                                            Research for the benefit of SMEs




page 42
                                                                              Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                                       EDIPAC
2        Implementation




Distribution of the EC-contribution
The EC-contribution will be allocated to the different partners. TT will be
remunerated 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 the
partners in the costs of own RTD-activities (138,200), management (112,700)
and other activities (167.900); total own costs (418,800)

                 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

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-performers
to the SME’s and is all that is actually required by the Commission.(other
tables here are included to indicate to you how to calculate the final figures for
Table 2.2
      Table 2.2 Indicative breakdown of the offer from the RTD performers




page 44
                to the SME participants:
                                                                                                                                                     2
      This is an essential table.


          Name of RTD No. of        Personnel   Durable     Consumables Computing   Overhead   Other Costs   Total by RTD   Project     Work
          Performer   Person-       Costs       equipment                           Costs                                   Results     package No
                      months


          7. NUN      60            354,000     10,000      6,700                   70,800                   441,500        1.2; 1.4;   1,2,3
                                                                                                                            2.3; 3.3;
                                                                                                                            3.5,
                                                                                                                                                              Implementation




          8. IPT      35            255,000                 2,000                   114,700                  371,700        2.3; 3.1;   2,3
                                                                                                                            3.2; 3.3;
                                                                                                                            3.5
          9. ITA      60            236,000     10,000      3,000                   49,800                   298,800        1.4; 2.3;   1,2,3
                                                                                                                            3.1; 3.5


          Total                     845,000     20,000      11,700                  235,300                  1,112,000
          receipts
                                                                                                                                                                              EDIPAC
                                                                                                                                                     Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                            Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                                     EDIPAC
3     Impact




3
                Impact: The potential impact through
                the development, dissemination and
                use of project results

 The maximum length for section 3 should be 10 Pages excluding tables

3.1 Contribution at the European [and/or international] level to the expected impacts listed in the
work programme under the relevant activity
Summary
For the SME members in the EDIPAC consortium, there are clear and demonstrable benefits to be gained
from the successful implementation of the successfully developed technology. These benefits will accrue to
food producers and retailers, and firms within the food packaging sector; all these benefits will be passed
on to consumers who will gain access to healthier foodstuffs and an improved perception of the food
packaging industry. In addition, there will be environmental benefits relating to less waste material and
hence, improved environmental sustainability. The overall impact of this will be to place SMEs within the
European food industry in a highly competitive position in both the European and international markets
thereby creating and protecting jobs, increasing revenues to allow further investment and technological
developments, 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 product
safety, and the consumer will benefit from a safe product in an edible package with no waste plastic for
disposal. 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 will
generate economic savings for food retailers by reducing the need for regular stocking, reducing the capital
plant and energy costs of refrigeration and, also, the associated ‘food miles’ hence reducing the carbon
footprints associated with transportation costs.
The proposed project will concentrate on two specific food types: fruit and fish. The successful
demonstration of the new technology for these products will open the way for its application to other types
of food which will require further development work before they are marketed to take into account the
variable perishability of different types of food. Finally, the uptake for any new product is always gradual
and the impact will increase with consumption; one of the key project roles of the PFFM and Euro Opi is to
inform and educate consumers in order to maximise the speed of uptake and market penetration



                                                                                                       page 45
                                                                             Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                                      EDIPAC
3         Impact




• 3.1.1 Economic Impact for SME’s
The proposed research is pre-competitive. It will only apply to a limited range of
foods on a pilot plant scale and further demonstration will be necessary to prove
the techno-economics and to further broaden acceptance by consumers across
additional food types. It is intended that, once the project is completed, the
SMEs will continue to drive exploitation of the project deliverables by continuing
the programme of demonstration to other manufacturing companies and also
promote the benefits to the general public. It is envisaged that edible packaged
products will be introduced progressively, starting within 12-18 months following
the completion of the project. The degree and rate of expansion will depend on
the economies of scale in Fantasylene production, pricing policies (subsidies
available etc) and consumer acceptance. It is recognised that it will be necessary
to obtain approval from the relevant regulatory authorities under the Novel Food
and Processing Regulations and a dossier will be presented to a competent
authority and then submitted to the European Food Standards Agency (EFSA) for
regulatory clearance. This process takes an average of 3 months from
completion of the submission to notification of the outcome. Given the detailed
information gained during the project on the properties of Fantasylene and its

                                                                                       Give the estimated
interaction with the test foods, it is considered that there is unlikely to be a

                                                                                       time to market
regulatory problem.

                                                                                       /adoption and indicate
                                                                                       any further technical
Market size

                                                                                       developments or
An Economic Impact Assessment has been carried out to estimate the potential
                                                                                       demonstration
                                                                                       activities required
size of the market; the results are presented below in Table 3.1.1. This analysis

                                                                                       after the completion of
has been performed on the basis of potential direct economic benefits to the

                                                                                       the research project.
SMEs. The benefits have been quantified in terms of:
• For food producers, the added-value of packaged food products that will
  reduce retail storage costs and command premium prices
• For food packaging companies, increases in the market for their services
• For the SME’s, licensing income




page 46
                                                                                 Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                                          EDIPAC
3      Impact




Fig 1 Market Size Statistics Summary
                                 EC 000’s                  OUTSIDE EC                           TOTAL

                         Tonne            Euro         Tonne            Euro            Tonne           Euro

Alpha                      550           13,750          150            3,750            700          175,000
Fantasylene
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


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 a
standard price/volume curve. The additional cost of Fantasylene film per unit of coated product will be
small, based on a likely price of less than 1€/m2 and this will be offset by savings that will accrue to
companies throughout the supply chain from:
• lower transportation costs due to reduced weight and volume of packaging materials


  to be as much as €1 million per annum per °C reduction in temperature for a single large chain of stores
• reductions of 25% in refrigeration costs; these are not insignificant and have been estimated by the FPA


• increased shelf life of perishable foods resulting in lower wastage


  community some €1.2 million per annum
• virtual elimination of packaging disposal costs – currently estimated to cost the food manufacturing


The net result of this will be low on-costs and enhanced consumer demand thereby justifying the
description of Fantasylene as a high added-value product.




                                                                                                            page 47
                                                                               Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                                        EDIPAC
3         Impact




Market share
A market analysis by the National University of the Netherlands of Product
Marketing has used the project SMEs as representative models of the wider food
industry and has shown that:
a) Piscicatch (Participant 5) and Les Vergers (Participant 4) will gain an increase in
turnover of the order of 5% over two years and make additional savings resulting
from the improvement in food shelf life and decrease in waste disposal charges.
b) SMEs that provide food packaging services can expect to increase their
market share from 1.2% to 3% in two years from commercial exploitation, based
upon 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 the
opportunities that the successful introduction of a Fantasylene food packaging
system will give other SMEs. They are also very aware of the wider need to
win consumer confidence in their product but have not had the resources or
know–how to do this directly. Therefore their partnership with the public
relations SME organisation, Euro OP,(participant 3) will bring credibility in the
conducting of consumer opinions and will be pivotal in shaping the consumer
view following clear and concise explanations of the properties of the material
and its considerable environmental and food safety advantages.
The proposed research and manufacturing development will put the plans for
the expansion of the European food production sector back on track and
enable a massive extension to the plan in terms of increasing domestic sales
and gaining export opportunities.
The food manufacturing/processing SMEs have been very concerned about
their falling profit margins (now less than 5% from 8.75% 3 years ago).To
ensure 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 profit
margins and it is estimated that the use of Fantasylene would increase their
margins, at present sales volumes, to 11%. In this context edible plastics
provide a useful marketing tool. The INN-R (participant 6) is regularly looking
at ways to make food retail products more visually attractive and to extend
shelf life but is aware of the reservations of ‘green’ customers who are
concerned about previously claimed toxicity effects from conventional
wrapping plastics caused by migration into food products. The positive
aspects that non-toxic Fantasylene will keep products fresh, enhance their
page 48
                                                                              Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                                       EDIPAC
3      Impact




appearance and be welcomed for its sustainability footprint will, therefore,
increase the public demand for such foods at the expense of products from
overseas 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 total
investment of 2.035.200 euro in the EDIPAC project will be recovered in one year
after project completion. Commercial exploitation will be implemented via a
number of routes:
- Improvement of profits from food product sales by the
manufacturers/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 an
investment ratio of approximately 40:1. The main beneficiaries of this increase in
business volume will be the SMEs who can anticipate consequential increases in
employment levels of several hundred persons over the period; a greater impact
will be achieved as the new technology across the rest of the European food
industry.
Development and dissemination of codes of best practice and standards
A detailed quality manual will be produced to cover the edible packaging
process which will enable the dissemination of best practice in Quality Assurance
for all organisations involved in the uptake of the new technology. Process and
product data will be made freely available to the European Food Standards
Agency (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, the
technology would potentially be attractive to manufacturers of other products
where sensory properties and their transfer are important e.g. household
cleaners, soaps, perfumes etc. Further work would also be required to
investigate innovative labelling methodologies for use with this novel packaging
material (this is outside the scope of the proposed project).



                                                                                                         page 49
                                                                            Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                                     EDIPAC
3         Impact




                                                                                     Explain why the
                                                                                     project would
3.1.4 Contribution Towards Community Societal Objectives

                                                                                     contribute to solving
European Dimension

                                                                                     problems at the
                                                                                     European level (i.e.
Any change that has a positive impact on food quality is of relevance to all

                                                                                     why the expected
European Government agencies and companies involved in the food sector.

                                                                                     impact of doing the
The negative social and environmental effects of packaging materials on food

                                                                                     work at European
quality, as well as recycling and disposal issues, continue to present technical

                                                                                     level, with a
challenges to scientists whilst, economically, it is recognised that reducing
                                                                                     transnational
packaging costs and volumes would make European products more
                                                                                     approach would be
                                                                                     greater then the sum
competitive in the global market. In addition, the development of this

                                                                                     of impacts on national
technology as applied to healthy food choices will encourage consumption of

                                                                                     projects)
healthy 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 the
implementation of edible packaging will also have a positive effect on quality
of life of consumers. The trial foods have been selected deliberately since they
carry the healthy eating message and would contribute to initiatives such as
the UK’s ‘5 a day’ message.
Thus, the successful conclusion of the EDIPAC project would have positive
effects 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

                                                                                     How is the quality of
Success with the project would contribute to the EC Packaging & Packaging
                                                                                     the research improved
                                                                                     by its execution on a
Waste Directive (94/62/EC) which came into force in 1994 and has been

                                                                                     European basis?
considerably updated (EC 1935/2004) and strengthened. Edible packaging will

                                                                                     Explain the need to
reduce the waste burden and the polymer Fantasylene has been shown to be

                                                                                     establish a critical
recyclable with a 90% yield. The product has previously been cleared for

                                                                                     mass in human and
safety but will still need to be considered by SCFTS (the Standing Committee

                                                                                     financial terms and
of Food Toxicology & Safety in the food chain), the latter being an organisation
                                                                                     the combination of
                                                                                     complimentary
to which the Project Co-ordinator acts as an advisor.

                                                                                     expertise and
3.1.5 Trans-national Approach

                                                                                     resources available
                                                                                     across Europe in
Impact of working at European level

                                                                                     different organisations
The expertise available in specialist research centres from several Member
States will be necessary for the resolution of the problem within the required
timescale. Variations in the origins of European foods, packaging and
distribution centre procedures as well as the variety of tastes throughout the
Community need to be taken into consideration to come to an acceptable
page 50
                                                                               Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                                        EDIPAC
  3      Impact




                                                                                       Explain how the
                                                                                       research may increase
solution for the single market. In the case of consumer acceptance, we learnt

                                                                                       transnational
from genetically modified food that the population of Europe was less open to

                                                                                       technological
the technique than, say, the USA. Furthermore, it is understood that there are

                                                                                       cooperation among
some evidenced trends between specific Member States therefore the
                                                                                       SMEs and research
consumer understanding, dissemination and trials need to be conducted
                                                                                       organisations or other
                                                                                       organisations at the
across Europe.

                                                                                       European level. Where
Effect of trans-national technological cooperation

                                                                                       appropriate
                                                                                       technology transfer
In recent years, the European food production industry has experienced

                                                                                       between industrial
considerable economic pressure from overseas competitors, which has forced

                                                                                       sectors should be
European SMEs to seek competitive advantages by the adoption of new

                                                                                       described.
products and processes. While some innovations can be developed and
introduced at the single company level, there are many opportunities, such as
a move towards edible packaging, which would be more effectively
implemented across the whole sector. Under these circumstances, SMEs look
towards other partners to take a lead but, where this entails expert R&D
capabilities, the SMEs rarely have the necessary expertise and facilities to
undertake the work. This makes the food industry extremely vulnerable to
changes in customer demands for healthy diets, convenience and a
perception of environmental friendliness.
By cooperating at a trans-national level, the SME’s will gain a greater
appreciation of the breadth of national consumer and industry requirements
and, by being in a position to steer the direction of the research, will be able to
ensure that they obtain the maximum opportunities to service both domestic
and international markets. In addition, by selecting specific RTD performers
from different states that can provide complementary expertise, a critical and
cost-effective mass of activity will be brought to bear that will maximise the
value of the work undertaken. It would not be possible to achieve all of these
benefits by attempting to undertake the programme within a single EU state.
The combined efforts of the project participants will ensure that the
deliverables meet the requirements of all interested parties and that
exploitation opportunities will be maximised. The multi-national backgrounds
of the consortium SME’s and the RTDPs will ensure that the demonstration
and training activities will effectively diffuse through to the target SME
beneficiaries and meet their individual demands for the new packaging
system. All project participants will benefit from having the opportunity to
interact and exchange ideas with the other consortium members from other
states that would otherwise be difficult to achieve outside of the project.
                                                                           Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                                    EDIPAC
3         Impact




3.2 Appropriateness of measures envisaged for the dissemination and/or
exploitation of project results, and management of intellectual property
The involvement of Euro-OP in the project consortium is innovative but
justified within the context of this project since, while the technology is being
developed, this participant will ensure that measures are implemented to keep
consumers and end-users fully informed. The objective of this is to provide


                                                                                     A clear and adequate
informed feed-back and, also, to avert public concerns that have followed

                                                                                     description of how the
other innovative food developments where the technologies were developed

                                                                                     participants will
and the public felt that it was forced upon them without prior knowledge,

                                                                                     organise IPR
warning or the right to choose.

                                                                                     ownership and user
                                                                                     rights (licences,
3.2.1 Project results and IPR

                                                                                     royalties etc)
Ownership of IPR and User rights
The participants in the EDIPAC project have agreed to adopt the default
position regarding intellectual property namely that the SME’s will retain full
ownership of all Foreground Information (i.e. the project results). As most of
this IP will be generated by the RTDPs, they will be fully reimbursed for their
costs incurred during the course of the research programme. This principle will
be contractually bound into the Consortium Agreement that will be signed by
all participants prior to initiation of the project.
In particular, the SME’s will gain full rights to exploit and disseminate the
results among their member, and latterly, their non-member companies.
Furthermore, the RTDPs will grant the SMEs free access to all their relevant
Background Information so that exploitation is not impeded. The RTDPs will,
however, retain ownership of their own Background Information and will be
granted the rights to pursue further R&D in sectors outside of the food
industry. The SME participants will therefore be in a position to grant
(exclusive or non-exclusive) licences and negotiate royalty payments that will
be in the best commercial interests of themselves and their member
companies.
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 project
  purposes
• define ownership of the anticipated results
• propose conditions for a fair and equitable agreement on the payment of
  patenting costs by the SME’s and the distribution of downstream revenues
page 52
                                                                            Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                                     EDIPAC
3      Impact




• define the roles of the project participants regarding exploitation and
  dissemination of the anticipated results
IP management and exploitation
Dr John Moneypenny, Director for Research Exploitation, PFFM, will take on
the role of Exploitation & IP Manager for the EDIPAC project. It will be his duty
to ensure that the knowledge gained in this project will be exploited and
disseminated for the maximum benefit of the SME’s. He will manage all
knowledge developed within the EDIPAC project and will have full
responsibility for protecting the Intellectual Property derived. With regard to
patenting, he will be assisted by Professor Jennifer Smart from the National
University of the Netherlands who has wide ranging experience in patent
applications and IP management. She was the original inventor of Fantasylene
and has the experience of processing the earlier patent application. Professor
Smart and her team could be named as co-inventors of the patent but
ownership 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 and
  dissemination
All RTDP researchers will fill in Laboratory Notebooks a daily basis throughout
the term of the project and will provide these notebooks for signature sign-off
and dating each month by their team leader. All Foreground Information
generated during the project will be documented and reported on at the 6
monthly meetings of the Management Board. The Board will review these
results 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 will
be reported to the SME participants and a clause to this effect will be
incorporated into the project Collaboration agreement. It is anticipated that
patentable IP will be generated during the course of the EDIPAC project. The
                                                                                                       page 53
                                                                             Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                                      EDIPAC
3         Impact




SMEs, under the directorship of the Exploitation & IP Manager, will engage
competent European patent agents when necessary to advise on patent
issues, draft preliminary patent applications and seek advice on copyright
issues as they arise. This activity has been catered for in the project budget
under ‘Other Costs’.
The Exploitation & IP Manager will draw up guidelines to ensure that the
RTDPs refrain from including any confidential project-related work in activities
that may lead to public exposure of the project results prior to their protection.
These guidelines will include a condition that any document intended for
publication will be circulated in draft form to all project participants who will
then have 2 weeks in which to convey to the authors any objections they may
have to publication.

                                                                                       The handling of IPR
                                                                                       should be embedded in
IP Registration

                                                                                       a wider knowledge
At the start of the project, an IP Register will be produced that each

                                                                                       management plan. It is
participating organisation will have the ability to contribute to. Each participant
                                                                                       advisable to insert a
                                                                                       dedicated task into the
will be required to list in the Register all of its Background IP (patents, know-

                                                                                       work-plan and include
how etc.) that is relevant to, or could affect the exploitation of, Foreground

                                                                                       a detailed IPR
Information that is generated during the project. Each participant will also be

                                                                                       management plan,
able to place on the Register any ‘external’ IP that they may discover that,

                                                                                       including;
similarly, could affect protection of Foreground IP. This will be a ‘living
document’ that will be updated, as appropriate, during the course of the
project and will support the activities of the Management Board in deciding on         - Relevant staff

                                                                                       - Project results
the areas and nature of IP protection that will be pursued.


                                                                                       - Ownership of
                                                                                       foreground (see table
3.2.2 Dissemination and Use
The Exploitation & IP Manager, will be responsible for the exploitation and            IPR 1)
dissemination 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 emerging
  project results
• report the proposed strategies to the project Management Board
• implement the strategies, once agreed with the Management Board



page 54
                                                                          Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                                   EDIPAC
3     Impact




Plan for the use and dissemination of Foreground
Dissemination activities will commence once the IP protection measures are in
place, however, milestone progress reports will be made to the membership of
the SMEs through their respective websites, the EDIPAC website, bulletin
reports and/or circulars throughout the project. Full knowledge of the project
results will be transferred to the SMEs via non-disclosure on a royalty-free,
unencumbered access basis. The non-disclosure confidentiality agreements

                                                                                    The IPR default
will be in place prior to any dissemination or demonstration activities. This

                                                                                    regime desired by the
transfer of Foreground knowledge will be implemented through a series of

                                                                                    European Commission
information seminars and demonstration/training workshops.
                                                                                    for these types of
                                                                                    project is for the
                                                                                    ownership to stay with
                                                                                    SMEs equally.
Dissemination to a wider audience / raising public awareness & acceptance

                                                                                    However, the SMEs
Scientific achievement will be disseminated by the RTDPs through papers

                                                                                    may agree on other
presented at conferences(e.g. Euro Materials Expo) and published in technical

                                                                                    conditions with the
magazines such as ’Polymers Today’ and ‘Material World’ Some of the
                                                                                    RTD performers.
fundamental polymer science will be published in high quality, peer reviewed

                                                                                    This fictitious proposal
journals such as ‘Acta Polymerica’. In all cases, permission to disseminate will

                                                                                    has been developed to
be obtained in advance from the project Exploitation Committee so as not to

                                                                                    show one possible
jeopardise confidential information. EFFP and FPA will ensure similar

                                                                                    scenario in Table 3.2.2
dissemination to the food industry by publications in the trade press and
                                                                                    that differs from this
representation at Food Fairs and Trade Shows such as Verpackung Nord.
                                                                                    default position. It is
                                                                                    presented here for
EuOP will hold meetings with the major consumer organisations and will hold

                                                                                    illustrative purposes
store-point tasting sessions when the products are launched.

                                                                                    only and should not be
Other dissemination mechanisms will include:
                                                                                    used as the desired or
                                                                                    default IPR ownership
• EDIPAC project website

                                                                                    position. The optimum
                                                                                    scenario is that ALL
• EU specific websites and promotions office

                                                                                    SMEs have ownership
• Technology transfer initiatives (European & National)

                                                                                    of the foreground IP
                                                                                    derived from the
• Trade bodies

                                                                                    project, and that each
• EU Government Departments – specifically for Agriculture & Food
                                                                                    SME has the
                                                                                    opportunity to exploit
• Advertising campaign – (ranging from in-store promotions through to media

                                                                                    this IP commercially,
  advertising (National Press/radio/TV)

                                                                                    either individually or
                                                                                    in some collective
• Consumer dialogue

                                                                                    sense via the SME
Exploitation routes to Market
PFFM, and Inno-Retail will develop a marketing strategy for this novel              partnership.
packaging on behalf of their respective SME members and retail outlets and
                                                                                                       page 55
                                                                                                            Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                                                                     EDIPAC
3         Impact




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-Retail
mini-market chain. As confidence is established, the packaged food products will go to market through
existing networks (various retail chains and distribution networks). Introduction to the market place will
be on a phased basis and progressive build
Expectations /timelines on market growth and share:
                                   D5.4
              D2.3                 D3.3                D5.2                             Year 1                     Year 2                Year 3
                      Integrate           Consumer       Manufacture and     Initial Product Stock set up     Market Replication   Licence to import
Develop Coating      processes ,          Acceptance      Sale of Spraying              and Sales                 in Europe            franchises
  Technology
                   deposition trials         trials         Technology                (see Note 1)              (see Note 2)          (see Note 3)

                  Project Life Cycle                                         Exploitation Life Cycle (years 1 to 4)

Note 1: Food Suppliers. Les Vergers (France) and PisciCatch (Portugal) will stock and sell fruit and fish
products with the Beta Fantasylene coating. Euro OP will monitor sales and follow up on related

companies equating to €800.000 for the two SMEs.
consumer satisfaction surveys. Year 1 sales are forecast at a conservative 5% increase for these two


Note 2: Based on favourable Year 1 consumer feedback, PFFM and Euro-OP have agreed to promote

sales by a factor of 25 on the first year sales. This will mean a projected sales increase in Year 2 of €8
and set up market replication projects in Germany, UK, France and Portugal that will aim to increase



Note 3: Replication will occur throughout Europe in Year 3 with an estimated sales increase of €25
million in the target states.



non-European markets. This will achieve projected yearly licence fees of €5 million to the IP owners
million. The main focus in Year 3, however, will be in licensing of this technology throughout the world in

and exploiters of the technology.
As has been stated above, the Foreground IP generated during the EDIPAC project will be owned by
the RTDPs who will lead the dissemination and exploitation activities principally aimed at technology
transfer to the SME companies. This will be accomplished through demonstration workshops and
training on the pilot plant facility. Those SMEs in the food production and retail sectors that wish to
adopt the technology will be granted royalty-free access to the IP for exploitation relating to fruit and
fish. 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 coating
machinery will be identified and licences negotiated to allow the SMEs to adopt the edible packaging
process, initially, by the end of the first year after project completion. To support exploitation, the results
of 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




page 56
      Table 3.2.2                    Project Results (including knowledge) to be acquired by                                                                    3
                                     the SME participants.

                                                     1) PFFM                             (4) Le Ver                           (5) PisC
                                                                                                                                                                         Impact




          Project Result    Project Result           Type of            Remuneration     Type of            Remuneration      Type of            Remuneration
          (No)              (Description)            Exploitation (*)   (€)              Exploitation (*)   (€)               Exploitation (*)   (€)
          1.1               Characterisation of      Licensing &
                            Fantasylene              IPR
          1.2               Stability                polymer            Licensing &
                            knowledge-                                  IPR
          1.3               Stability knowledge      Licensing &                         Ownership                            Ownership
                            - food contact           IPR
          1.4               Raw material             Ownership                           Licensing                            Licensing
                            manufacture
          2.1               Deposition process                                           Licensing                            Licensing

          3.1               Pilot Process            Patenting                           Licensing                            Licensing
                            development
          3.2               Develop surface          Licensing
                            treatment to food
          3.3               Deposition trials

          3.4               Pilot Packing                                                Ownership                            Ownership
                            Process
          Subtotal                                                      778,000***                          167,000***                           167,000***
          remuneration
          Total             1,112,000
          remunerations**



      (*) Ownership, Patenting, Licensing, other IPR protection, etc
      (**)This Total must be equal to the figure estimated in Form A3.2
      (***) This figure represents the sum total of the remuneration (invoices) for the subcontracting to the RTD performer
                                                                                                                                                                                         EDIPAC
                                                                                                                                                                Research for the benefit of SMEs




page 57
                                                                                    Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                                             EDIPAC
4         Ethical Issues




4                   Ethical Issues
 Describe any ethical issues that may
 arise in the proposal. In particular, the
 following special considerations (where
 relevant):
                                             •
                                             •
                                             •
                                             •
                                                 Informed consent
                                                 Data protection issues
                                                 Use of Animals
                                                 Human embryonic stem cells
                                                                                    Include the ethical issues table - if any of
                                                                                    the boxes are completed positively, refer
                                                                                    back to the page in the proposal.


There will be no ethical issues
REMEMBER if there are no ethical issues, tick the YES box at the end of the form
                                                                                                       YES          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?                                                     No
Research 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?                                                No
Privacy
• Does the proposal involve processing of genetic information or personal data (e.g.                   No
  health. Sexual lifestyle. ethnicity. political opinion. religious or philosophical conviction)
• 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
page 58
                                                                              Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                                       EDIPAC
5    Consideration of
     gender aspects




5               Consideration of
                Gender Aspects
The project does not lead to any gender issues the researchers / marketing staff / consumers are certainly
to include representative population balances.



 These are not evaluated but may be discussed during contract negotiations. They could include actions related to
 the consortium or where appropriate actions aimed at a wider public e.g. dissemination events
 Include a list of any relevant EU or nationally funded projects
 Include a full list of relevant references cited in the proposal




END OF EXAMPLE PROPOSAL




                                                                                                          page 59
                                                                                  Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                                           EDIPAC
6         List of References
          and Related Projects




List of References
and Related Projects
• 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 was
conducted into the use of non-toxic films for the decoration of edible products. It excluded the foods in this
proposal discussions have been held with the co-ordinator and the film in question was structurally
different 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 the
  packaging mountain
3 Cling Film – decreasing the sperm count in males up to the age of 40- Daily Alarm Friday 13th
  December 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 been
 consistent in allocation of codes and numbers to work packages, partners, references etc. Once you have
 finalised 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 for
 submission in plenty of time. If there has been a large response to a call (and most people, by definition, submit
 at the last minute) you might find that the EU servers cannot cope and there could be a delay in receipt. If the
 call deadline is reached, any proposals that are not through the system but in a queue will not be eligible

page 60
                                                                              Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                                       EDIPAC
       Check List




FINAL PROPOSAL CHECK LIST
Does your planned work fit with the call for proposals? Check that your
proposed work addresses the call. (See the current version of the work
programme).
Is your proposal eligible? The eligibility criteria are given in the work programme.
In particular, make sure that you satisfy the minimum requirements for the
makeup of your consortium. Have any additional eligibility criteria been set for
this call? Check that you comply with any budgetary limits that may have been
fixed on the requested EU contribution. Any proposal not meeting the eligibility
requirements will be considered ineligible and will not be evaluated.
Is your proposal complete? Proposals must comprise a Part A, containing the
administrative information including participant and project cost details on
standard forms; and a Part B containing the scientific and technical description
of your proposal as described in this Guide. A proposal that does not contain
both parts will be considered ineligible and will not be evaluated.
Does your proposed work raise ethical issues? Clearly indicate any potential
ethical, safety or regulatory aspects of the proposed research and the way they
will be dealt with in your proposed project. An ethical check will take place during
the evaluation and an ethical review will take place for proposals dealing with
sensitive issues. Proposals may be rejected on ethical grounds if such issues are
not dealt with satisfactorily.
Does your proposal follow the required structure? Proposals should be precise
and concise and must follow exactly the proposal structure described in this
document which is designed to correspond to the evaluation criteria which will
be applied. This structure varies for different funding schemes. Omitting
requested information will almost certainly lead to lower scores and possible
rejection.
Have you maximised your chances? There will be strong competition. Therefore,
edit your proposal tightly and strengthen or eliminate weak points. Put yourself in
the place of an expert evaluator; refer to the evaluation criteria. Arrange for your
draft to be evaluated by experienced colleagues; use their advice to improve it
before submission.




                                                                                                         page 61
                                                                        Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                                 EDIPAC
7         Additional Information
          and support




Additional Information
and support
Official Documents
This guide to Research for SMEs and example proposal is intended to help understand the
principles of Research for SMEs. It does not supersede the official and legally binding documents
related 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 following
webpage:
http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/dc/index.
The SME TechWeb website provides a wide range of background information and resources for
technology 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 and
individual assistance in all Member States and associated countries. They offer a wide range of
services and should be the first contact when preparing a proposal. You can easily find the contact
details of the designated National Contact Point for your country:
http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ncp_en.html




page 62
                                                                               Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                                        EDIPAC
       Additional Information
       and support / Glossary




Glossary
A
Acknowledgement of receipt - Applicants are informed by email shortly after
the deadline that a proposal has been successfully submitted (but not that it
is necessarily eligible). Contact the help desk urgently if you do not receive
such an acknowledgement.
Applicant - The term used generally in the guide for a person or entity
applying to a call fro proposals. The term ‘participant’ is used in the more
limited sense of a member of a proposal or project consortium.
Associated countries - Non-EU countries which are party to an international
agreement with the Community, under the terms or on the basis of which it
makes a financial contribution to all or part of the Seventh Framework
Programme. In the context of proposal consortia, organisations from these
countries are treated on the same footing as those in the EU. The list of
associated 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 for
proposals (e.g. topics covered, budget, deadline etc). It is posted as a
separate document on the
CORDIS web page devoted to a particular call.
Call for proposals (or "call") - An announcement, usually in the Official
Journal, inviting proposals for research activities in a certain theme. Full
information on the call can be found on the CORDIS web-site.
Consortium - Most funding schemes require proposals from a number of
participants (usually at least three) who agree to work together in a consortium.
Consortium agreement – This is an agreement made between the
participants of a project consortium to govern a number of issues that may
arise during delivery. It is required by all FP7 funded projects, unless otherwise
indicated.
Coordinator - The member of the consortium who acts as the point of
contact with the Commission.
CORDIS service - A web service providing access to all the documentation
related to FP7, and access to the electronic proposal submission service.


                                                                                                          page 63
                                                                            Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                                     EDIPAC
7         Additional Information
          and support / Glossary




Cut-off date - An intermediate date in the context of a call operating a
continuous submission procedure. Full proposals are evaluated in batches
after each cut-off date.
D
Deadline - For a particular call, the moment after which proposals will not be
received by the Commission, and when the Electronic Proposal Submission
Service 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 its
lifetime. 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 service
which must be used to submit proposals to the Commission. Access is given
through the CORDIS web-site, or via a specific site.
Eligibility criteria - The minimum conditions which a proposal must fulfil if it is
to be evaluated. The eligibility criteria are generally the same for all proposals
throughout FP7, and relate to submission before the deadline, minimum
participation, completeness and scope. However, specific eligibility criteria
may apply to certain calls, and applicants should check the work programme.
Evaluation criteria - The criteria against which eligible proposals are
assessed by independent experts. The evaluation criteria are generally the
same for all proposals throughout FP7, and relate to S/T quality, impact and
implementation. Relevance is also considered. However, specific evaluation
criteria may apply to certain calls, and applicants should check the work
programme, and annex 2 of the Guide.
Evaluation Summary Report (ESR) - The assessment of a particular
proposal following the evaluation by independent experts. It normally contains
both comments and scores for each evaluation criterion.
F
Funding scheme - The type of support that can be given to a project within a
call. The funding schemes have different objectives, and are implemented
through different grant agreement conditions.




page 64
                                                                           Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                                    EDIPAC
      Additional Information
      and support / Glossary




G
Grant agreement - The legal instrument that provides for Commission
funding of successful proposals.
I
International Cooperation Partner Countries (ICPC) - See here for the list of
countries: ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp7/docs/icpc-list.pdf
International organisations of European interest - International
organisations, the majority of whose members are European Union Member
States or Associated States, and whose principal objective is to promote
European 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 with
regard to the next stage of the project. For example, a milestone may occur
when 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 national
authorities to provide tailored information and advice on each theme of FP7, in
the national language(s).
Negotiation - The process of establishing a grant agreement between the
Commission 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 is
completed using the web-based EPSS.
Part B - The part of a proposal explaining the work to be carried out, and the
roles and aptitudes of the participants in the consortium. This part is uploaded
to the EPSS as a pdf
                                                                                                      page 65
                                                                            Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                                     EDIPAC
          Additional Information
          and support / Glossary




File participants - The members of a consortium in a proposal or project.
Programme committee - A group of official national representatives who
assist the Commission in implementing the Framework Programme.
Proposal - A description of the planned research activities, information on
who will carry them out, how much they will cost, and how much funding is
requested
R
Reserve list - Due to budgetary constraints it may not be possible to support
all proposals that have been evaluated positively. In such conditions,
proposals on a reserve list may only be financed if funds become available
following the negotiation of projects on the main list. This will extend the
timescale for a final decision.
Risk-Sharing Finance Facility (RSFF) - A new mechanism to foster private
sector investment in research, by increasing the capacity of the European
Investment Bank and its financial partners to provide loans for European RTD
projects.
RTD - Research and technological development.
RTD Performer - Research and technological development performing
organisation.
S
Scientific and Technological Cooperation Agreements - Countries with
signed S&T agreements: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Chile,
Egypt, India, Mexico, Morocco, Russia, South Africa, Tunisia, Ukraine and
United States
Single Stage Submission this is the process whereby there is only one stage
involved in the electronic submission of a proposal (as is the case in this call,
in some calls a two stage process is used)


with fewer than 250 employees and a turnover less than €50 million.
SME - Small or medium sized enterprise. This definition applies to businesses



than €10 million, while micro businesses employ fewer than 10 people and
Small businesses employ fewer than 50 people and have a turnover of less

have a turnover of less than €2 million.
Sub Contractor an individual or organisation that is contracted to deliver
specific tasks to assist the delivery of the programme; for example, an agency
that is contracted to design and run the project web site
page 66
                                                                            Research for the benefit of SMEs
                                                                                                     EDIPAC
      Additional Information
      and support / Glossary




T
Third Country - Countries that are not EU Member States, Candidate or
Associated Countries
Thresholds For a proposal to be considered for funding, the evaluation scores
for individual criteria must exceed certain thresholds. There is also an overall
threshold for the sum of the scores.
W
Weightings - The scores for certain evaluation criteria may be multiplied by a
weighting factor before the total score is calculated. Generally, weightings are
set 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 proposed
project with a verifiable end-point - normally a deliverable or a milestone in the
overall project
Work programme - A formal document of the Commission that sets out the
research objectives and topics to be addressed. It also contains information
that is set out further in this guide, including the schedule and details of the
calls for proposals, indicative budgets, and the evaluation procedure.




Acknowledgements - In addition to the contribution from the members of
the TransCoSME consortium, contributions were also gratefully received
from Technofi (France)



                                                                                                       page 67

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:8
posted:10/17/2012
language:English
pages:110