MICROKELVIN Kickoff Meeting

Helsinki

2 th - 4 th April 2009

Maria DoukaEuropean Commisssion, DG

RTD

Definition of ResearchInfrastructures

• Facilities, resources, services usedby scientific community for– Development of leading-edge research– Knowledge transmission, knowledge exchanges

and knowledge preservation• Includes

– Major equipment– Scientific collections, archives and structured

information– ICT-based infrastructures– Entities of a unique nature, used for research

Objectives of the Community

Research Infrastructures actions

Tackling better fragmentation by optimising the use and development of the best research infrastructures infrastructures existingexisting in Europe

(Integrating Activities)

Catalysing effect towards the Construction or major upgrade of Research Infrastructures

Developing a vision for the next 10-20 years by fostering capacity building and excellence (Support to Policy Development)

Reminder:Today’s budgetary

constraints

Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total

Budget available (M€) 215 160 55 80 510

Design studies 20 20

Construction - preparatory phase

45 45

Construction - implementation phase

35? 35? 70?

Support measures 10 5 10 25

Integrating activities 160 100 45 45 350

Preparatory Phase

10 topics corresponding to the 10 new ESFRI projects in the Roadmap 2008

EISCAT_3D upgrade EPOS SIAEOS   ECCSEL EMBRC EU-Openscreen EuroBioImaging BSL4 Laboratory EMFL CTA

Budget of 45 M€, call to be published in Sep. 2009

Environmental Sciences

Energy

Biological and Medical Sciences

Materials & Analytical Facilities

Physical Sci. & Engineering

Support Measures

ERA-NET supporting cooperation of MS and AS for RIs (policy) in all S&T fields (from 1 to 2 M€)

Studies, conferences and roundtables for RI policy in all S&T fields (from 0.2 to 1 M€)

Supporting impact assessments of RIsStrengthening cooperation of European RIs with

third countriesSupporting other important policy developments

Budget of 10 M€, call to be published in Sep. 2009

Integrating ActivitiesOverall strategy

A targeted approach:

To focus on strategic priorities

To make the most efficient use of the very limited budget available

Identification of topics

A draft list of topics, based on:Scientific landscapes established by ESFRI RWGsPublished national roadmaps (DK, FR, IE, NO, ES, SE, UK; as

well as third countries such as AU, USA) Other policy documents (CERN, SCAR, etc.)Currently funded I3/Integrating Activity projects and

Coordination Actions (FP6 and FP7)Unfunded proposals and/or topics from last bottom-up calls

A one-day workshop with 40 high-level experts, to ensure that these topics correspond to recognised needs and priorities

Further input from the FP7 thematic priorities, and DG INFSO

Expert workshop

Work carried out in 6 thematic sub-groups

Experts were asked to:Give a motivated opinion in support for or

against the proposed topicsGive advice, when appropriate, for better

defining the focus and phrasing of the proposed topics

Indicate any missing priority topicHelp establish the timing of the topics for the

3 calls

Integrating Activities Approach

• Three calls for proposals : For each of the three calls, a list of defined topics

Each topic corresponding to one project, for one class of Research Infrastructures e.g.: "Research Vessels", "Virus archives", "Historical archives“…

More topics will be listed in the three calls foreseen, than can be funded (~40), to ensure competition

• Maximum EC contribution: 10 M€, for WP 2010 (Duration of projects: 4 years)

For WP 2011, possibility of 15-20 M€ restricted to analytical research infrastructures serving large communities of scientists from diverse scientific fields.

Distribution of the topics between calls

Call APublished Sep. 2009

Call BJan. 2011

Call CJan. 2012

36 topics

Expected number of funded projects: ~ 18-20

Budget: ~ 160 M€ Budget: ~ 100 M€ Budget: ~90 M€

21 topics

Expected number of funded projects: ~ 10

21 topics

Expected number of funded projects: ~ 12

Timing for WP 2010

By the end of February 2009:Input needed from PC Members: Informal

agreement, with possible corrections to the topic descriptions, and possible missing priority topics

Input from PCs of Thematic priorities

6 March: Draft WP sent to Programme Committee

20 March: Discussion of draft WP at PC meeting 30 March: Finalisation of draft WP May-June: ISC and consultation of the PC 29 July: Commission’s decision 4 September: Publication of Call (deadline 4

Dec.)

Next steps

January-February 2010: Evaluation of proposals from the 2009 call (closed on Dec. 4)

March 2010: Results presented to PC Members

April 2010: WP 2011 to be finalisedIt is very critical to already reflect on topics for

WP 2011The proposed timing would allow to take into

consideration the results from the 2009 call

Impact of EU Support Actions for RI in FP6

Economic Impact

Key findings:● Some evidence of projects having had an impact on relations with

industry partners ● Changes in the level of industry participation not prominent ● Joint projects with industry were realised within few projects ● Some evidence of industry having benefited from the RIs ● Little evidence of projects having produced commercialisable

outcomes● Some evidence of scientists moving to employment in industry Key conclusions:● Difficult to determine factors of the FP6 RI programme that

influence achievement of economic and industry impacts● Investment linked with construction and design positively

influenced industry participation in projects

Impact of EU Support Actions for RI in FP6

Societal impactsKey findings:● Most projects had public dissemination strategy in place● A minority of projects had realised some form of liaison with

local communities● Concrete examples of wider societal impacts were very

limited and tended to focus on medical advances, the environment and/or safety issues

Key conclusions:● Evidence of possible future realisation of impacts upon

wider society but little actual impact systematically being achieved

● Liaison with local communities is important but ultimately not enough to ensure wider societal impacts from this type of investment

Impact of EU Support Actions for RI in FP6

European Added Value & Structuring of ERA

Key findings:● European funding enabled certain activities that would not

have been possible otherwise ● Commission funding increased RIs’ visibility that helped to

establish research fields at European level● Researchers from New Member States were more involved

in European communities and networks than before● There was an increase in the degree to which researchers

networked● The European support has enabled scientists, particularly in

the NMS, to undertake new, more or better research

Impact of EU Support Actions for RI in FP6

European Added Value & Structuring of ERA

Key conclusions:• EC funding increased the visibility of participant

organisations and generated operational as well as wider European Added Value through support to activities otherwise not viable at European or International level

• EC funding enforced the structuring of the ERA via the strengthening and support to networking of researchers and through encouraging involvement of New Member states

Scientific Excellence

Implementation Impacts

ScienceFrontier research

Researchservices

Knowledgecreation

EuropeEuropean S&T

challenges GovernanceEuropean leadership

GrowthGrand

ChallengesResearch-

innovation bridgeSocio-

economic impacts