1

JPI CH - Coordination action in support of the implementation of

Joint Programming Initiative on

Cultural Heritage and Global Change: a new challenge for Europe.

Rome, 8th of June 2016, MiBACT – Ministero dei beni e delle attività culturali e del turismo

Via del Collegio Romano 27, 00186 Roma

JPI CH Governing Board Meeting

Participants

Emanuela De Menna - DG Research & Innovation, European Commission (via teleconference)

Hilde De Clercq - Royal Institute for Cultural Heritage (KIK-IRPA), Belgium

Leonidas Antoniou - Research Promotion Foundation (RPF), Cyprus

Mirelle Brange – Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR), France (as Oberver)

Xavier Engels - Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR), France (as Oberver)

Alexandre Caussé - Ministry of Culture and Communication (MCC) France

Sylvie Max-Colinart - Ministry of Culture and Communication (MCC) France

Sophie Fermigier – Ministry of Education and Research (DGRI), France

Antonia Pasqua Recchia - Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities and Tourism (MiBACT), Italy

Cristina Sabbioni - Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities and Tourism (MiBACT), National Research

Council (CNR), Italy

Patrizia Bianconi – Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities and Tourism (MiBACT), JPI CH

Coordination Office, Italy

Alessandra Cuscianna – Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities and Tourism (MiBACT), JPI CH

Coordination Office, Italy

Elisa Gerussi – Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities and Tourism (MiBACT), JPI CH Coordination

Office, Italy

Maria Uccellatore - Ministry of Education, University and Research (MIUR), Italy

Vaidas Petrulis - Kaunas University, Research Council of Lithuania (RCL) - Lithuania

Tonte Hegard - Ministry of Climate and Environment, The Research Council of Norway (RCN), Norway

Eli Ragna Taerum - The Research Council of Norway (RCN), Norway

Radoslaw Brudnicki - National Institute for Museums and Public Collections on behalf of the Ministry of

Culture and National Heritage (MKDN), Poland (as Oberver)

Aneta Buzdalek - - National Institute for Museums and Public Collections on behalf of the Ministry of

Culture and National Heritage (MKDN), Poland (as Oberver)

Paulina Florjanowicz - National Institute for Museums and Public Collections on behalf of the Ministry of

Culture and National Heritage (MKDN), Poland (as Oberver)

Carlos Pereira - Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, (FCT), Portugal

Monica Alexandru, Ministry of National Education (ANCSI), Romania

Emilio Cano Diaz – Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (MINECO), Spain

2

Annemarie Bos – The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO), the Netherlands

Sue Carver - The Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC), United Kingdom (via teleconference)

Pierluigi Sacco – Harvard University, guest

Agenda

1. Opening of the meeting. Adoption of the provisional agenda and communication. Approval of the

minute of the JPI Governing Board Meeting held on the 10th December 2015.

2. Evaluation of Joint Programming to Address Grand Societal Challenges – Final Report by the Expert

Group. Statement of the 10 Chairs of the JPIs.

3. Horizon2020 WP 2018-2019-2020. FP9 structure and road map.

4. JPI CH future planning within JHEP2: Alignment, common actions, infrastructure cooperation,

communication, internationalization activities.

5. JPI CH ongoing activities: Updating about Heritage Plus call and Heritage Portal.

6. JPI CH Internationalization actions with USA: prospective and road map.

7. Update about the support for the future of the JPICH: Business Plan draft presentation

8. Update on JPICH strategic activities and meetings.

9. Concluding remarks.

Meeting Minutes

The GB meeting starts at 09.40 AM.

1. Opening of the meeting. Adoption of the provisional agenda and communication. Approval of

the minute of the JPI Governing Board Meeting held on the 10th December 2015.

Antonia Pasqua Recchia, JPICH Coordinator, welcomes the Governing Board (GB) Members.

The GB approves the agenda of the current meeting and the minutes of the last GB meeting held in Paris in

December 2015. After a round table of presentations, Antonia Pasqua Recchia leaves the word to Leonidas

Antoniou, GPC Chair and representative of RPF in the JPI CH.

2. Evaluation of Joint Programming to Address Grand Societal Challenges – Final Report by the

Expert Group. Statement of the 10 Chairs of the JPIs.

Leonidas Antoniou presents the results of the Report on the evaluation of JPIs that was aimed at monitoring

the progress of JPIs in the last 10 years. He describes how it was organized the evaluation activity, what the

composition of the Experts Group and the method used in the evaluation process. The results show that

countries can be gathered in three groups according to their involvement in JPIs: leaders, selected players,

marginal players.

Commitment, satisfaction, benefits, barriers and national commitment. The general impression from both the

evaluators and the audience is that it is still too early to judge the JPIs performance and impacts. For this

reasons, the evaluators selected two intermediate indicators that might be more significant in this stage.

These are the progress towards impact on the societal challenge and the mobilization of co-investment and

alignment actions.

A graph on the positioning of the JPI CH to the other JPIs shows the former one having six scores (out of

eight) lower than the JPIs average. The JPI CH is aligned with the JPIs average for what concerns the degree

of national alignment and self-sustainability. The share of national investment is the indicator showing the

lowest level. The general picture is that almost all JPIs have some problems with their sustainability, in terms

3

of secretariat and internal governance. On this purpose, Leonidas Antoniou stresses the need of find a way to

self-sustainability besides the CSAs that are a good instrument but temporary, though. If the EC decides to

close the CSAs as an instrument for JPIs, the JPI CH will probably face a big problem.

Furthermore, countries should prefer the establishment of a national coordination system for Joint

Programming, especially those where there is no central authority managing the research sector. Countries

should explore the potential synergies with their Smart Specialization Strategy. Nonetheless, Leonidas

Antoniou reminds that the way countries invest in cultural heritage is not always clear and it is often

transversal, that is why the JPI CH is not able to answer the question on the consistence of national

commitment.

The main issue concerning the JPIs is their visibility that is too low, especially at policy makers’ eyes, which

might be a critical aspect.

The main recommendation coming from this evaluation report has been the proposal of establish a long term

common process for the next Framework Programme on Research.

In Leonidas Antoniou’s opinion, the JPI CH must become the main player in the European scenario of

research applied to cultural heritage, thereby from now on it will have to focus on encouraging the national

commitment and improving the operational sustainability, along with a clear vision.

Antonia Pasqua Recchia thanks Leonidas Antoniou for this interesting presentation and says that, in her

opinion, the main issue the JPI CH has to work on is the national commitment.

Monica Alexandru from ANCSI underlines the importance of this evaluation process because it puts on

evidence the position and relevance of JPIs within the EC vision.

Cristina Sabbioni from MiBACT, CNR states that the most important aspect is now working for stressing the

role of JPIs in the next EC Work Programme. She poses three questions/observations to Leonidas Antoniou.

In particular:

- Concerning the expected relations with industrial stakeholders, JPIs were not implemented for overcoming

the role of JTIs that were meant to mobilize private research funding and apparently did not succeed in

organizing platforms for technological innovation joint programming. The relevance the EC is giving to the

industrial role in research and innovation pushes toward Pillar 3, and she is not entirely sure that this will be

the right way.

- Second, from the Evaluation Report it seems that the JPI CH has little relevance within the entire Societal

Challenge 5 (SC5) scenario but it is no clear what is the comparison term for this evaluation since SC5 has

launched very few calls in the last WP and they were not really focused on cultural heritage.

- Finally, the impression is that the support to the JPI CH from ERA-LEARN 2020 was very weak.

Sylvie Max-Colinart from MCC comments that in spite of the usefulness of evaluating the JPIs, it was not

easy to reply to all questions in the self-assessment part of the evaluation process simply because many

questions did not fit with the JPI CH scope.

Annemarie Bos from NWO agrees on the fact that the main issue is the national commitment and how the

EC and the GPC intend to face this gap.

Eli Ragna Taerum from RCN asks what are the recommendations from GPC and EC on how improving the

JPIs self-sustainability.

Leonidas Antoniou answers to the questions. He reminds that, since their launch in 2010, JPIs have been

meant as a reality strictly connected to countries and national commitment, being only partly supported by

the EC. This point has to be renewed because while JPIs design the strategic approach to societal challenges,

the national governments are supposed to define clearly their commitment to this strategic approach. We

should focus on how to prove the JPI CH relevance and efficiency rather than thinking that the evaluation

criteria chosen by the evaluators are not correct for our JPI. One of the fields in which JPI CH can improve

its performance is the international cooperation by increasing its participation and involvement in

international discussions or events on cultural heritage. This will be possible also by developing our way to

sustainability also by looking at best practices implementing by other JPIs. One example is the sustainability

of the secretariat that in many JPIs is supported both by in-kind personnel and an annual fee from each

participating countries.

4

As for driving innovation, Leonidas Antoniou thinks that the main purpose of JPI CH is delivering solutions

to the society, which is not exclusively connected with promoting industrial leadership.

Hilde De Clercq from Belspo asks how Leonidas Antoniou sees a future major role of the JPI CH in the

European research on cultural heritage considering the weak relevance cultural heritage has being given by

the EC Work Programme.

Cristina Sabbioni and Maria Uccellatore from MIUR inform that the last Italian National Research Plan

2015-2020 includes cultural heritage as a national priority and this occurred mainly thanks to the work done

by the JPI CH. Maria Uccellatore adds that in Italy there is a national coordination on this and a coordination

among the other JPIs themes.

Leonidas Antoniou speaks about leadership and says that the JPI CH will have to increase its dynamicity at

European level and organize at least 10% of research investment in cultural heritage in order to be seen as a

leader player.

The discussion proceeds with a presentation on GPC Expert Group long-term recommendations to JPIs. The

idea is to create a working group made of representatives of GPC, JPIs and EC - expected to work with the

GPC - to prepare the future of the JPIs. For the first meetings all JPIs are invited, and in that occasion the

organizational issues and working methodology will be discussed.

This long-term working plan is composed of 4 WPs. WP1 is for establishing a common framework with the

guidelines for a common strategy for JPIs, persuading the European Council that a lot of work has been done

so far. For the last GB meeting in 2016 the JPI CH should have already a draft document to discuss. WP2

aims at preparing a proposal for JPIs in the WP 2018-2020 and the suggestion is to decide about a planning

for the next 3 years by next October 2017 to be submitted to the EC through the GPC. WP3 focuses on

preparing a proposal also for the next Framework Programme, including a long-term JPIs strategy document

and general practical issues on joint programming. These WPs should be aimed at finding out a specific role

for JPIs. Finally, Leonidas Antoniou show a schedule of this planning process including deadlines until

March 2018 when the Council and European Parliament conclusions are expected. In this strategy design

phase, the JPI CH does not need to consider modifications or a new version of the SRA. The whole process

should take place before the EC Framework Programme planning takes place. Leonidas Antoniou invites the

GB Members to build this strategy by organize meetings additional to the institutional ones workshops in

case opened to other JPIs so that discussion can be fostered.

It is agreed that the next GB meeting will be in Rome in November 2016, 30.

3. JPI CH future planning within JHEP2: Alignment, common actions, infrastructure

cooperation, communication, internationalization activities.

Due to the fact that Emanuela De Menna from the EC can participate only in the afternoon, sections 3 and 4

have been interchanged.

Cristina Sabbioni introduces the section dedicated to the description of the state of the art of actions planned

in JHEP2. All speakers are invited to summarize the key points of each WP.

Emilio Cano Diaz from MINECO presents the working plan for WP1. According to the previous project

meeting of December 2015, the WP1 would start working on T1.1, but after a few considerations it was

decided to draft only one questionnaire on both T1.1 and T1.2 to be given to all project Beneficiaries, due to

the high complementarity between the two Tasks. JHEP2 Beneficiaries are required to submit the full

questionnaire, prepared by BELSPO in collaboration with RCN and MINECO, by the end of August. The

questionnaire can be filled in via a given link and by country, so Beneficiaries from the same country are

asked to provide unique replies. Once the Beneficiary has submitted the answers to the questionnaire, it can

always go back to it until the very end of August 2016 when the electronic system will be definitively

deactivated. At the same time, ANR and Cyprus, Leaders of T1.3 are working on a questionnaire for yearly

reports. The conclusion of this Task will be the Workshop on Alignment (Milestone 1 from the DoA)

scheduled at Month 26 (February 2018).

5

Annemarie Bos presents the working plan for WP2. The ambition is to have four joint calls of which one

large co-fund in SC5 or SC6. She summarizes the results from the questionnaire on T2.1 sent to all Partners

last January. The results show a preference on four areas, which foster the possibility of Countries

commitment: “conservation and protection”, “identity and perception”, “changing environments” and

“digital heritage”. “conservation and protection” and “changing environments” belong to SC5 whereas

“identity and perception”, “digital heritage” belong to SC6. Two purposes can be identified for the next

future: on the one side, national commitment to the joint calls, on the other side, the inclusion of selected

topics into the next EC Work Programme. Next November a new roadmap for T2.1 will be outlined on the

base of the national commitment situation.

RCL leads T2.2 on Heritage Practice. A questionnaire has been sent to all Beneficiaries to identify both

interested practitioners (first part of the questionnaire) and activities (second part of the questionnaire) that

could be launched to foster knowledge exchange. Final results will be soon released.

Concerning T2.3 led by RCE, another questionnaire has been sent to identify, through a selection and

clustering process, at least 3 joint actions from the JPI CH Action Programme to be implemented in the next

2 years. The results will be better analyzed in next weeks, though. Five activities result being identified by

the Beneficiaries as the most urgent ones: Social, cultural, political and economic value of cultural heritage;

Changing landscapes: landscape with its cultural heritage and natural environment; Cultural heritage

concepts and theories; Re-use and continued use of buildings, historic urban centres and landscapes;

Community as actor in heritage management. The conference on governance will be combined with the

workshop on alignment at month 26.

T2.4, led by SNHB, will consider a number of crucial institutional documents and reports on cultural

heritage. To work on the report the Leaders will draft a template and a guidance on impact of heritage

research (AHRC) and on impact of heritage (SNHB). In the next months, a questionnaire on case studies will

be sent to the JPI Partners.

The last Task is T2.5 aimed at transforming the Heritage Portal into a knowledge hub. The work done so far

has been setting up a working team and developing the concept of the hub along with the methodology.

Results will be released by the end of 2017.

Carlos Almeida Pereira from FCT, introduced by Sylvie Max-Colinart, presents the working plan for WP3.

The work is focused on refining the previous list of indicators from JHEP Project, by eliminating those

overlapping, those no longer necessary, and those considered useless for the purpose; by aligning the list

with the guidelines from the EC and the GPC; by considering all inputs coming from of the JHEP2

Beneficiaries. The indicators excluded will not suppressed since they might be re-considered in future within

further JPI CH activities. The structure of JPI CH evaluation framework can be based on four levels for each

category of impact: global impact, intermediate impact, immediate impact and project impact. For each of

these levels there are specific objectives leading to indicator identification.

Elisa Gerussi from the Coordination Office presents the structure of D4.1 – Communication and

dissemination strategy and gives some proposals for the internationalization strategy. As underlined in

previous meetings, it becomes clear that internationalization reinforce JPI CH leadership on join

programming research applied to tangible, intangible and digital cultural heritage, and as well it represents

also a specific requests from the EC and the GPC. Elisa Gerussi shows the first results from a questionnaire

sent to all JPI CH Partners – “first” since some answers from some countries are still missing. These results,

only partial now, give information on existing relations with extra-EU subjects, the preferences on countries

to connect with and typologies of joint activities to implement in future. The strategy will be oriented to both

extra Europe and European countries.

Elisa Gerussi gives also a few words also on the communication strategy with specific reference to JHEP2

D4.1 to be submitted by the end of June 2016. The Coordination Office is working on this Deliverable

following the structure proposed in the last kick off meeting and shown again in this occasion.

6

Cristina Sabbioni updates the GB on infrastructures. After the last meeting on February 2016, the

relationships have been carried on especially with DARIAH, PARTHENOS and the just approved E-RIHS.

Furthermore, Cristina Sabbioni informs that the JPI CH has been asked by ACTRIS – an environment ESFRI

infrastructure - to express interest to the output of data they are going to set up and joint it as stakeholder.

Emilio Cano and Hilde De Clercq will ask Luca Pezzati, coordinator of E-RIHS, to include the JPI CH

among the stakeholders.

4. JPI CH ongoing activities: updating about Heritage Plus call and Heritage Portal.

Patrizia Bianconi from MiBACT and the Coordination Office gives information on the state of the art of

Heritage Portal. At the end of last May, the Mid-Term Report of Heritage Plus Project have been submitted

to the EC. Moreover, all Heritage Plus’ Partners but Mineco (Spain) – due to technical problems with the

Third Parties - have received the pre-financing payment received by the EC. Next interim payment will be

done in two years. In two cases, Romania and Spain, the amount of top-up has been reduced of the amount of

the fee due to the Coordinator.

5. JPICH Internationalization actions with USA: prospective and road map.

Cristina Sabbioni introduces Professor Pierluigi Sacco, from Harvard University, who participates to the

meeting as a guest in order to discuss possible future opportunities in the field of internationalization, in

particular with the USA.

Pierluigi Sacco gives first three premises. The first is that in USA there is no specific heritage policy, even

though there is a multitude of initiatives. Second, the multidisciplinary nature of cultural heritage as

perceived in Europe is not so obvious in US. Third, art and humanities is the main label under which the

concept of cultural heritage can be placed. From this point of view, the major references are NEA (National

Endowment for the Arts) and NEH (National Endowment for Humanities) not entirely heritage-focused, but

both very interested in heritage issues. The NEA has just launched a call for a new initiative called NEA

Research LABs which underlines that there is a need of high quality research in the three fields: arts and

earth, arts and cognition, and arts and innovation.

What is important at this moment is the debate upon the ongoing passage from STEM – Science

Technological Engineering Mathematics – to STEAM – Science Technological Engineering and Arts

Mathematics.

The major opportunities with the US are related to the relationship between cultural heritage and humanities

- that is becoming an innovating topic - and digitalization, as well as how to develop of a knowledge society.

This is modifying the very notion of what cultural heritage is. These aspects are crucial to think about a

possible cooperation between the two Countries.

From this picture, the Pierluigi Sacco’s suggestion is trying to establish a link with the NEA especially

because the new Director is very interested in cultural heritage issues and the possible contribution from

Europe. He can try to informally contact the NEA.

The second suggestion is to contact the universities, first of all Harvard. At moment, the Harvard system is

quite fragmented as each school has its priorities and policies, not really related to the others. In spite of this

situation, the aim of Harvard is to increase the coordination and the complementarity, which means that there

is much higher interest than before on themes that have a multidisciplinary nature, such as cultural heritage.

A second aspect to consider is that the most important persons in Harvard are the Deans of the Schools, and

the new Dean of the Arts and Humanities is stepping in next September. This is the moment in which this

school is particularly keen to new opportunities of research and collaboration. It should be taken into

consideration also the School of Government. It is important to have a very specific proposal from the very

beginning in order to facilitate the dialogue. Among all the scenarios, the most interesting one the Harvard

MetaLAB working on digitalization of heritage.

Other universities that may be interesting for collaboration: Yale, NYU, Princeton, Stratford, …

Concerning other countries, South Korea, Hong Kong, Canada should be considered.

7

Cristina Sabbioni summarizes the approach to collaborate with USA in three steps: identify a few research

areas in which collaborating and then create a bilateral task force to start exchange knowledge as a starting

point for future research collaborations and joint calls.

6. Update about the support for the future of the JPICH: Business Plan draft presentation

Patrizia Bianconi speaks about the JPI CH sustainability by presenting the draft document of a two year-

business plan (Annex I) showing the excel tables including the identified cost categories. The document was

sent to all JPI CH Partners before the meeting as a proposal to be discussed. In addition to the actual and

expected costs of the JPI CH functioning, the business plan reports a proposal of scenario of countries

contributions for JPI CH sustainability.

A discussion among the Partners arises a number of issues.

NWO asks to include all JHEP2 and Heritage Plus project activities and in-kind contributions.

RCN asks to better detail the costs of the Secretariat and all the activities.

The Coordination Office will revise the business plan tables and send to all Partners tables including the

number of months per year, monthly cost per person, and total cost.

All other Countries at the table agree on making the business plan more detailed.

As for the organization of the institutional or project meetings, it is agreed that countries can propose to host

the meetings.

7. Horizon2020 WP 2018-2019-2020. FP9 structure and road map

Emanuela De Menna from the DG Research & Innovation of the European Commission informed that the

representatives of H2020 SC5 Programme Committee met the day before, i.e 7th of June. The discussion

touched also the JPIs and their location in the future Framework Programme (FP9). More specifically, the

Committee discussed about the joint calls, the sustainability of JPIs, the fact that too many Era-Nets have

been funded so far. The proposal coming from this discussion is to organize a meeting with the JPIs in order

to find the best way to collaborate in future, so Emanuela De Menna invites the JPI CH Members to meet the

EC. The possible dates for the meeting are 15 and 16 September 2016. The EC will let the JPI CH know in

the next months when it will be available.

8. Update on JPICH strategic activities and meetings and concluding remarks.

Cristina Sabbioni informs that the JPI CH was presented in several international occasions. Italy participated

– in the person of Cristina Sabbioni – to some institutional meeting in Argentina and Brazil for the Year of

Italian – Latin America Culture in last December 2015: 1st – 2

nd December in Buenos Aires within a

workshop on ‘Science and innovation for the study and conservation of the works of art’, and 4th and 5

th

December in Rio De Janeiro.

Cristina Sabbioni also presented the JPI CH at the Italian – German workshop on “Technology and

networking for Cultural Heritage” in Berlin 12th of April, 2016.

As previously said, Cristina Sabbioni was also present to the European Culture Forum 2016 in Brussels

where Silvia Costa, the President of the Culture Commission of the European Parliament, specifically

mentioned the importance of tangible, intangible and digital cultural heritage. She also underlined that the

European Parliament is asking the EC to give more priority to culture in order to give it a horizontal

dimension across all priorities.

On that occasion, Federica Mogherini announced 2018 as the European Year for Culture Heritage and

anticipated the document “Cultural Diplomacy as an instrument of EU Neighbourhood Policy" just

approved.

Finally, the Italian Minister of Cultural Heritage, Dario Franceschini, reported during the Forum on the

UNESCO meeting where the Blue Helmets were formalized.

8

Patrizia Bianconi will participate to next GPC meeting on 14th June in Bruxelles and Cristina Sabbioni to the

next JPI Chairs meeting on 24th of June in Vienna.

The meeting closes at 6.00 PM.

9

Annex I – Business Plan Draft

BUSINESS PLAN FOR JPICH INTRODUCTION

The Joint Programming Initiative on Cultural Heritage (from now on JPI CH) is a dynamic

programme under development. Since the launch in 2010, several activities have been

implemented and a notable list of results have been achieved. All in all, the active participation of

all Consortium members and the successful results we can see from the monitoring activity of the

funded projects are the most considerable ones. Underneath are the intermediate steps that

enabled the JPI CH to go forward and become a well-defined structure, such as the projects

implemented within the European Work Programmes and the joint calls. The agenda of the next

months and years puts on table a number of challenges that need to be scheduled and planned in

terms of operational tasks and funds to allocate. In order to carry on the envisaged activities, the

JPI CH has to focus on the management of its current resources as well as their allocation.

The business plan serves as an instrument to the JPI CH program management by identifying the

tasks to be implemented with concerning effort and resource requirements. It encloses a

framework referring to the strategic documents underpinning our JPI (SRA, Vision Document and

Action Program), a list of future activities as agreed with the Consortium, and a financial planning.

The strategic documents serve as a reference point of the whole planning activity as both the SRA

and the Vision Document point out on the objectives and final targets of the JPI CH, whereas the

Action Program 2016-2018 envisages strategic actions and priorities connected to the enabling

elements that were identified in the SRA.

The list of future activities is the outcome of the ongoing implementation of Heritage Plus and

JHEP2 projects, so it is to be meant as the departure point for managing and allocating funds and

resources.

Finally, at the core of the document the financial planning provides a picture of actual and future

finances thus enabling to prioritize activities as well as to identify deficits or weaknesses in the

current allocation.

This Business Plan has a 2 years validity, 2017-2018.

10

OBJECTIVES With this business plan the JPI CH aims at reinforcing the Consortium approach to future activities. In particular, the outstanding objectives are:

To strengthen the communication of managerial issues among JPI CH Partners and with external subjects. This enables to promote the transparency of the program management, especially among the Participants, as well as the general awareness of costs, needs and provisional budgeting. It serves also as promotional tool showing the objectives of the programme that have to be weighted on available resources and real efforts.

To formally outline the management of the JPI CH finance. Both ongoing and planned activities are strongly connected to the availability of the JPI resources. It is fundamental to adopt an instrument on a regular basis that leads to a clear overview of the finance.

To establish a long term operational instrument for managing the JPI CH and all related activities. The JPI CH needs to focus on its future sustainability, that means identifying future activities and targeting fields as well as how and when to invest. For that purpose, a Business Plan may guarantee a long term management approach with better results.

To operate an appropriate and efficient allocation of the JPI CH financial resources, which enables to properly select the activities according to the programme priorities.

11

JPI CH FRAMEWORK

It develops the vision for the area of research on cultural heritage in a changing world. It calls for a concerted research action to enable Member States to maximize and exploit at best their research efforts.

The Vision Document rests on the fact that protection of cultural heritage in the face of global change is becoming a major concern for decision-makers, stakeholders and citizens in Europe.

Research into strategies, methodologies and tools is needed to safeguard cultural heritage against continuous decay. Before irreversible damage is done, concerted actions, based on sound science, are needed to protect, strengthen and adapt Europe’s unique cultural patrimony.

Developed purposely with the aim to present Cultural Heritage as a holistic, integrated research area around its three key facets - tangible, intangible and digital – it identifies four research priority areas:

Developing a reflective society. The world is changing and research needs to reflect this change.

Connecting people with heritage. Exploring access by addressing themes and issues that enable people and communities to connect with heritage, underpinned by sustainable management plans.

Creating knowledge. Deepening our understanding of the context in which cultural heritage exists and is formed, and developing innovative approaches that will create added value for society.

Safeguarding our cultural heritage resource. How to protect our heritage and the research that is required to support protection.

It has a life span of 3 years, 2016-2018 and provides an enabling framework including a number of actions that should be undertaken as priorities by the JPI CH. It identifies six goals: capability and capacity; management strategies; knowledge sharing; research infrastructure; policy, laws and regulations, Funding and implementation of joint activities. For each goal, stakeholders, specific actions, responsible parties and timing are given.

It serves as an operational programme to manage activities and resources to be allocated in future activities and projects. Provides practical tips and tricks, is to be used by the member states that lead these activities. The Guidance for managing Joint Activities will refer to the contents of the Deliverable 2.6 of JHEP2.

VISION DOCUMENT

8 levels of objectives 6 areas of action

STRATEGIC

RESEARCH AGENDA

4 priority research

areas

ACTION

PROGRAMME

6 goals

56 activities

GUIDANCE FOR

MANAGING JOINT

ACTIVITIES – to be

defined

12

GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE The Programme Consortium is composed of 18 Countries represented by Ministries or Funding Agencies dealing with research and/or cultural heritage issues. The JPI CH is based on a three-layered governance structure - as shown in figure 1 - with a Governing Board (GB), an Executive Board (EB) and a Coordination Office (CO). Two additional bodies, the Scientific Committee (SC) and the Advisory Board (AB) support the GB and EB on scientific and strategic issues.

Fig. 1 – The JPI CH Governance Structure

The Coordination Office (CO) is composed of the JPICH Coordinator (Mrs. Antonia Pasqua Recchia) and a Secretariat. The Coordination Office has the following tasks:

to be responsible for planning and preparing the Governing Board and Executive Board meetings;

to ensure proper implementation of the GB decisions and to monitor follow-up of the action lists established by the GB;

to be responsible for the implementation and compliance of the JPICH Term of Reference;

to assure institutional links with the GPC (High Level Group for Joint Programming) and with the European Commission offices;

to be responsible for the required reporting and communications with the GPC and European Commission;

to assure the link with the other JPIs;

to assure institutional link with other initiative on cultural heritage as Eranet projects and Infrastructures, particularly ESFI ones;

to ensure the communication and dissemination of information concerning this JPI to gain high visibility across Europe and beyond;

GOVERNING BOARD

(GB)

COORDINATION

OFFICE (CO)

ADVISORY BOARD (AB)

UNESCO

ICCROM

ICOM

COUNCIL OF EUROPE

ICOMOS

EUROPA NOSTRA

ECTP

EXECUTIVE BOARD (EB)

SCIENTIFIC

COMMITTEE (SC)

13

to ensure the visibility of the joint activities of JPICH at EC level (ERA LEARN monitoring questionnaire, GPC questionnaire, interviews,…)

to be responsible for the establishment and maintenance of the JPICH web site internet pages and public relations;

for the projects ongoing supporting the JPICH implementation (as Heritage plus and JHEP2), it’s responsible for the coordination and management activities of the projects including periodic and final technical and financial reports to the European Commission;

for the projects ongoing supporting the JPICH implementation (as Heritage plus and JHEP2), assists WP Leaders and Task Leaders in coordination of the respective WPs and Tasks;

to follow and execute - in cooperation and consultation with the Participants – the managing joint actions such as organizing external evaluation, panel meetings etc.);

The main tasks of the Secretariat are split among various domains of activities related to: JPI CH Governance:

to assist the JPI governance bodies (GB, EB, SC, AB) by organizing the meetings and assisting during the meetings;

to assist the Chair of the GB in preparing the draft agenda and related documents for GB meetings;

to provide support for the preparation and follow up of these meetings, namely editing documents necessary to the meetings, writing minutes and circulating information among the Members;

to assure an efficient coordination between the various JPI bodies. JPI CH external relationship

to assist the JPI CH Coordinator and GB members with Europeans Board (i.e High Level Group for Joint Programming -GPC), including data collection/analysis for increased reporting requirements of GPC and EC;

to assist the JPI CH Coordinator and GB members to assure institutional involvement with the ERALEARN project or other cultural heritage networking;

to promote and implement internationalization actions aimed at extending the JPI CH networks with third non-EU countries, through common activities and long-term collaborations.

JPI CH Communication and dissemination

to disseminate information and propose the collaboration with other initiatives;

to support the JPI CH Participants in all the dissemination events;

to support the JPI Coordinator for the communication and dissemination of information concerning this JPI to gain high visibility across Europe and beyond;

to support the JPI Coordinator for the visibility of the joint activities of JPICH at EC level (ERA LEARN monitoring questionnaire, GPC questionnaire, interviews,…)

to update and manage the JPI CH institutional web site;

to facilitate the process of joint activities at large (e.g. joint strategic planning, joint calls, other co-alignment activities).

14

EC Projects to the JPI CH:

for the ongoing EC projects supporting the JPICH implementation (as Heritage plus and JHEP2), ensure the coordination and management activities of the projects and the drafting of periodical technical and financial reporting to the European Commission;

for the projects ongoing supporting the JPICH implementation (as Heritage plus and JHEP2), assist WP Leaders and Task Leaders in the coordination of the respective WPs and Tasks;

support the JPICH participants included into the project Consortium to manage the partner data and financial information within ECAS portal.

FINANCIAL PLANNING JPICH Participant Countries need to contribute with funding to run the governance structures and to ensure the sustainability of the Secretariat operability. The budget for the JPI CH sustainability shall be established and implemented in compliance with the principles of budgetary accuracy, non for profit, unit of account (in Euro), sound financial management, all of which require effective and efficient internal control and transparency. The budget will be recalculated every 2 years and submitted to the Governing Board. As the revenues, contributions from participating Countries are foreseen to be the main revenue for JPICH. Revenue in the form of tenders, project participation, donations, etc. constitutes a less stable income and is regarded as additional, temporal funding. In kind contributions cannot substitute cash contributions. The JPICH should fund a core Secretariat to ensure stability and consistency. The financial planning encloses two sections. The first one concerns what we will call the cross-cutting activities including basically the costs of the Coordination Office and Communication. These activities are active throughout the whole programme and are not necessarily connected to specific projects or initiatives. The second section refers to joint activities that will be implemented by all the JPICH Country Participants. Whereas the cross-cutting activities are long-term and concern general aspects and issues related to the JPICH structure and functioning, the joint activities come as results of the projects the consortium is engaged in. This means that at present we refer to JHEP2 and Heritage Plus projects, currently ongoing. Both budgets stemming from this distinction include fixed (labor cost, lodging, coordination activities…) and variable costs (travelling, marketing material, …).

15

Estimated Cross-cutting activities budget

Table 1

Note: The cost of personnel are to be considered as the total cost for the Administration (tax included ~ 45%) and not as gross salary perceived by the worker

The role of the Coordinator, in the person of Antonia Pasqua Recchia, is supported by the Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities and Tourism (MiBACT). The Secretariat activities include:

- the work of a Programme/ Project Manager who coordinates the Secretariat structure in its daily activities linked with both technical and financial aspects of the programme; coordinates

Category Costitem Budgetshare

Coordinator 0%

Employees

Costofemployees(1PM+2

assistants) €140.000,00

72%

Othercosts

EstimatedTravelling €10.000,00

Office( includetelephone,ITC

support,cunsumables,cleaning,

electricity,etc..) €15.000,00

€25.000,00 13%

JPICHinstitutionalwebsite 1.000,00 1%

HeritagePortal

Annualfixedrunningcosts,

includinghosting,maintenance,

technicalsupportandCMSlicence

fee €5.000,00

Contingencyfundintheeventof

unforeseentechnical

costs/productionoflimited

additionalpromotional €500,00

Costofonepersononatwo-day

perweekbasistomanagecontent,

editorial €20.000,00

€25.500,00 13%

Promotionalmaterial€2.000,00 1%

193.500,00 100%

CoordinationOffice

Communication

TotalCross-cuttingactivities

Amount(Euros/year)

Italianin-kindcontribution

16

the communication among JPI CH Partners; is responsible for processing institutional and strategic documents (business plan, communication strategy, …) as well as project reports requested by the European Commission (deliverables, mid-term and final reports), actually not paid by the projects budget as Heritage Plus and JHEP2; monitors and makes proposals on the budget and the financial status of the programme.

- the work of two assistants involved in the execution of daily activities, such as replying emails, contacting the partners, giving information on JPI CH to external subjects, preparing agendas and meeting documents, drafting minutes, setting institutional appointments, updating the website and writing the newsletter, coordinating the logistic and practical issues in case of promotional events and other dissemination activities.

The Secretariat staff when necessary travels for the programme purposes. Besides the institutional meetings (GB and EB meetings) the Secretariat members – primarily the Programme manager - may attend the GPC meetings, meetings with the European Commission, meetings with other JPIs, international conferences focusing on strategic topics for the JPI CH, presentations of international and European calls. All costs connected to the lodging are approximately as 10% out of the Secretariat activities costs and consist of rent, electricity, computers (and support related to it), consumables, telephone/postage. The cost category “communication” includes the technical maintenance and design definition of the JPI CH website that is constantly updated by the Secretariat. It also includes the Heritage Portal http://www.heritageportal.eu/. The Heritage Portal is a dynamic online community for both researchers and practitioners operating in the multi-disciplinary field of cultural heritage. It aims to address the very real problem of fragmentation within a research area where the topics covered can range from art history to nanotechnology and from microbiology, through sociology and anthropology, to structural engineering. Initially conceived under the NET-Heritage ERA-NET, and acquired by the JPI Cultural Heritage in October 2011, the Heritage Portal provides an online forum for the broad cultural heritage community that did not previously exist. For the last 2 years (2015 and 2016) the cross-cutting costs was covered as reported:

Coordination Office activities covered by the JPICH Coordinator (MIUR, MIBACT and CNR)

Heritage Portal covered by the JPICH participants

Joint activities budget This budget includes project activities from Heritage Plus and JHEP2. Whereas the former ones have been already defined, in the latter case joint activities from Task 2.3 have still to be selected and planned in detail. For this reason the following budget will be further updated as soon as the Task 2.3 will be concluded. Up to this point, the Joint Activities planned for 2017-2018 are:

Parade event 2017 for funded transnational joint projects

Parade event 2018 for funded transnational joint projects within the 2018 European Year for Cultural Heritage

Conference on governance structure 2017 (possibly including instruments in support to JPIs in FP9)

17

Conference on alignment beginning of 2018 within the 2018 European Year for Cultural Heritage

Heritage plus Final event 2018 (possible theme cross cutting themes inviting other JPIs) within the 2018 European Year for Cultural Heritage

Monitoring funded projects (WP4 HERITAGE+; WP3 JHEP2)

Alignment activities (WP1 JHEP2)

Preparation, Launch, organization and management of 3 small Joint Calls over 2017/2018 (WP2 Task 2.1 JHEP2)

3 Joint Activities from Task2.3 - JHEP2 Project, including networking, workshop, mobility, doctorates (to be defined in WP2 Task2.3 JHEP2)

Preparations new project related the JPICH implementation (Era Net Co Fund, CSA, etc.)

18

Table 2

Category Cost item Amount(Euros/2017) Paid BY Amount(Euros/2018) Paid BY

Even

ts

1° Parade event 2017 10.000,00 JPICH self financing (H+)

Venue 1.500,00

Catering 4.000,00

ITC devices and support 500,00

Promotional banners 500,00

Funded project teams travels 3.000,00

Dissemination material (publication: creative+printing)

500,00

2° Parade event 2018

10.000,00 JPICH self financing (H+)

Venue

1.500,00

Catering

4.000,00

ITC devices and support

500,00

Promotional banners

500,00

Funded project teams travels

3.000,00

Dissemination material (publication: creative+printing)

500,00

Conference on governance 2017 4.500,00 JHEP2

Venue 1.500,00

Catering 2.000,00

ITC devices and support 500,00

Promotional banners 500,00

19

Table 2(continue)

Category Cost item Amount(Euros/2017) Paid BY Amount(Euros/2018) Paid BY

Even

ts

Conference on alignment 2018

4.500,00 JHEP2

Venue

1.500,00

Catering

2.000,00

ITC devices and support

500,00

Promotional banners

500,00

Final event Heritage Plus 2018

4.500,00 JPICH self financing (H+)

Venue

1.500,00

Catering

2.000,00

ITC devices and support

500,00

Promotional banners

500,00

Monitoring funded projects

58.375,66

in kind by JPICH participants/JHEP2

58.375,66

in kind by JPICH participants/JHEP2 WP3

Alignment

85.869,55

in kind by JPICH participants/JHEP2

85.869,55

in kind by JPICH participants/JHEP2 WP1

Joint activities preparation 110.105,87

110.105,87

20

Table 2(continue)

Category Cost item Amount(Euros/2017) Paid BY Amount(Euros/2018) Paid BY

Join

t C

all J

oin

t C

alls

Small Joint Call*(WP2 Task 2.1 JHEP)

Coordination and management (including documents preparation)

10.000,00 in kind by JPICH participants

20.000,00 in kind by JPICH participants

Evaluators 15.000,00

JPICH self financing 30.000,00

NEW JPICH self financing

Total Joint Calls 15.000,00 30.000,00

Join

t A

ctiv

itie

s fr

om

Ta

sk 2

.3 -

JH

EP2

Coordination and Management Joint Actitivity #1 ?

JPICH self financing ?? new H2020 projects?

Coordination and Management Joint Actitivity #2 ?

JPICH self financing ?? new H2020 projects?

Coordination and Management Joint Actitivity #3 ?

JPICH self financing ?? new H2020 projects?

Total Joint Actitivies *(WP2 Task 2.3 JHEP2) -

Total cost of Joint Actitives 29.500,00 49.000,00

of which 15.000,00

NEW JPICH self financing of which 30.000,00

NEW JPICH self financing

21

Currently and with reference to the period considered (2017-2018) the budget includes 3 main categories: events, joint calls and further joint activities that well be yielded by the JHEP2-Task 2.3 implementation. Currently, we are able to disaggregate costs into the following details. Within the category of EVENTS we include:

- 2 parade events, in 2017 and 2018, respectively (Heritage Plus): costs for the venue, catering, ITC devices and assistance, a couple of promotional banners are included, travel expenses for funded projects’ participants, and the publication of all project results (normally an e-book but a few printed copies will be provided).

- A conference on alignment (JHEP2): costs for the venue, catering, ITC devices and assistance, a couple of promotional banners are included.

- A conference on governance strategies (JHEP2): costs for the venue, catering, ITC devices and assistance, a couple of promotional banners are included.

- Project final event (Heritage Plus): costs for the venue, catering, ITC devices and assistance, a couple of promotional banners are included.

Within the category of JOINT CALLS we include:

- 3 small Joint Calls planned to be implemented over 2017 and 2018: costs for the publication of the announcement on sectional scientific journals, reviews, websites; costs for the evaluators……

Within the category of OTHER JOINT ACTIVITIES FROM JHEP2-TASK2.3 we include: TO BE DEFINED YET Total costs estimated for the period

On the bases of previous activities and estimated related costs it’s possible evaluate the total costs for JPICH for the next 2 years.

Table 3

Cost item Amount 2017 Amount 2018

Cross-cutting activities (including JHEP2 and Heritage plus coordination) 193.500,00 193500

Joint calls 15.000,00 30000

Other joint activities ???? ???

Total 208.500,00 223.500,00

22

NATIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS The calculation of Participant Countries' contributions to the budget revenue shall be proportional to Participant Countries' financial capacities. In this section we propose to use the same criteria already used for calculating the partner contributions to cover the management costs of Heritage Plus project, that is the R&D personnel by Higher Education sector.

Contribution based on HE FTE (2014)

N. Countries

R&D personnel by Higher Education

sector, 2014 (FTE)

Scale of contributi

on (Rounded)

Proportional distribution

JPICH 2017 costs (*)

1 Italy 48.203,00 9,15 10.846,27 15.846,27 2 Belgium 19.148,00 3,64 4.308,53 9.308,53 3 Cyprus 520,00 0,10 117,01 5.117,01 4 Denmark 15.012,00 2,85 3.377,88 8.377,88 5 France 73.393,00 13,94 16.514,32 21.514,32 6 Norway 10.296,00 1,96 2.316,73 7.316,73 7 Portugal 25.848,00 4,91 5.816,12 10.816,12 8 Spain 57.156,00 10,85 12.860,80 17.860,80 9 Lithuania 5.241,00 1,00 1.179,29 6.179,29 10 Netherlands 21.450,00 4,07 4.826,51 9.826,51 11 United Kingdom 158.491,00 30,09 35.662,42 40.662,42 12 Poland 39.695,00 7,54 8.931,86 13.931,86 13 Sweden 19.616,00 3,72 4.413,84 9.413,84 14 Romania 6.378,00 1,21 1.435,13 6.435,13 15 Czech Republic 10.965,00 2,08 2.467,26 7.467,26 16 Slovakia 8.959,00 1,70 2.015,88 7.015,88 17 Ireland 5.747,00 1,09 1.293,15 6.293,15 18 Moldavia 520,00 0,10 117,01 5.117,01 Total 526.638,00 100,00 118.500,00 208.500,00

(*) Cost = Proportional distribution + minimum contribution (i.e. 5.000 Euro)

Data taken from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/science-technology-innovation/data/main-tables

23

Total budgeted management costs 208.500 Minimum contribution =

5000

Contribution to management costs = minimum contribution + Scale% of total costs minus 15 times minimum contribution

15 times minimum contribution =

90.000 Remaining costs

118.500

Alternately the calculation of Participant Countries' contributions to the budget revenue shall be proportional to Participant Countries' financial capacities. It is defined via a balanced weighting of the GDP and GDP per capita of each Member Country. The source of GDP used for the calculation shall be the one published by Eurostat. If the Participant Countries’ will decide for this method a table will circulate.