Part 3: ERA-Net CIRCLE Climate Impact Research Coordination for a Larger Europe FFCUL, Lisboa Martin...

<9th of February 2007> <1/46>

Part 3: ERA-Net CIRCLEClimate Impact Research Coordination for a Larger Europe

FFCUL, Lisboa

Martin König, CIRCLE coordinator


content

1. Putting the puzzle together:Brief introduction into the ERA-Net scheme and short history of CIRCLE

2. What is on our agenda until 2009?Brief overview of the CIRCLE Working Plan

3. What we already have:the CIRCLE extended country reportand other recent results

4. CIRCLE’s little helpers:homepage, newsletter, intranet, database


Step 1:Systematic exchange

of informationand best practice

Step 2:Identification and

analysis of commonstrategic issues

Step 3:Development of first

joint activities betweenthe programmes

Step 4:Preparatory activities re-garding the implemen-tation of transnational

research activities

overarching:

Management and communication

Stepwise deepening of integration level

Creating an ERA-NET CA with a structuring impact on the ERA

The ERA-Net scheme -1



33

11

44

22• Information exchange & best practices

• Common strategic issues

• Joint activities

• Joint/common calls (fixed for 2005/2006)

Ambitions of ERA-NET CAprojects:


71 % gain of efficiencyif bird flu doesn’t interrupt us


Fly unorganised and waste resources Get aligned and save resources


Short history of CIRCLE -1



CIRCLE’s partnership:– From seven partner countries in CIRCLE SSA to now– 25 partner institutions from 19 partner countries (including observers) in CIRCLE CA– More might join in future


European Commission

Advisory BoardPolicy Branch

Science Branch

Executive Boardconsisting of

Coordinatorsupported bySecretariat

WorkPackage leaders

Management‑WorkPackage

(“LEAD”)

WorkPackages

…Task TaskTaskTask

ContractorsCommitteecontaining all

consortium membersIn case of need:

Programme OwnersCommittee

In case of need:Certain task

leaders



Gather all necessary prerequisites for getting operational:– Extend and further update our knowledge base about

CLIMA* programmes and their• Scientific content and policy context• Management and administration• Dissemination strategies• Project evaluation and selection procedures• …

This is already very far developed now!

* abbr. stands for CLimate IMpacts and Adaptation

CIRCLE –our agenda until 2009 -1


Set the focus for our cooperation:– On a topical level (what are the most striking

issues and research gaps, which we want to tackle within CIRCLE)

– On a technical/operational levelor how to design the transnational activities

– Cooperate with other ERA-Nets on both levels

This is starting now and shall be pushed here at the CIRCLE APM!



CIRCLE

marinERA

BiodivERsA

EuroPolar SKEP

CRUE

IWRM.Net

Possible cooperation

URBAN *

Side step: CIRCLE-related ERA-Nets

* just starting


To develop all necessary “enablers” for transnational activities like joint calls:– Topical or geographical CIRCLE working

programme(s)– Common evaluation schemes– Modes of operations for joint calls like

– mutual opening of programmes– Pooling administration and evaluation, but fund projects

nationally– Joint calls with geographical/juste return principle– Completely open calls


“virtualcommonpot”

“realcommonpot”


CLIMA projects running from CIRCLE joint calls

Joint CIRCLE working programmes (lasting beyond 2009)

Joint central unit which handles the continuation of CIRCLE

Propose an FP7 E R ANet+

HARD

FACTS

Having had staffexchange

amongCIRCLE partners

Avoidedduplication in CLIMAresearch by aligning

our research agendas

Made use ofinfrastructural synergies

SOFT

FACTSmaintain CIRCLE as one of the

“best-practice ERA-Nets”Co-operating with neighbouring ERA-Nets to the degree possible

R E P U T A T I O N



Side step to a promising approach: The CIRCLE GROUPs (WP3)

MED

CEES

Mountains

Idea behind theGROUP concept:Similar sets of impactsPossibly joint implementation of adaptation measures

Related Question:One CIRCLE work programme (overarching topics)CIRCLE work programme per GROUP (regionally specific topics)

Developing Countries

Atlantic/Coastal

Nordic


CIRCLE –simplified working plan matrix

WP 1 LEAD: PM, administrative reporting, Organisation, Extension of partnership

WP 2 CONTINUE: long-term vision beyond 2009, policy watch, ERA-Net plus, Art. 169

WP 3 GROUP: groups take sets of CC impacts into account for MED, Nordic, Atlantic/Coastal, CEES, DC

WP 4 SPREAD: detection of target groups and dissemination via Homepage, Newsletter, Roadshows,…

WP ILEARN

Information

base

WP IIPLAN

Strategic

foci

WP IIICONNECT

Joint

activities

WP IVFULFIL

Transnational

activities/calls


The CIRCLE Extended Country Report (INGV / MATT, Italy)

Other recent results

WP I LEARNWhat we already have


Preface Executive summary Countries

– Climate zone(s) – Key vulnerabilities– Extreme events– National Impact Scenarios– National Adaptation Strategy – Climate Research Landscape– National Research Programmes on Climate Change

Impacts and Adaptation Acknowledgements References

Extended Country Report STRUCTURE


Key vulnerable areas– Mountains (Alps)– Coastal areas (Baltic, Mediterranean & Black Sea's)

Key vulnerable sectors– Water resources (South & South-East Europe)– Agriculture (South & Centrum Europe)– Ecosystems (marine ecosystems & wetlands)– Tourism (South-East Mediterranean coasts)

Extended Country Report MAIN OUTCOMES

Key vulnerabilities


Heat wave in 2003 – Triggering adaptation measures in: health,

agriculture, hydroelectric power supply and tourism.

Floods in 2002 & 2005– Triggering consideration of: reorganization of

health care services, the need for an effective flood-risk-management strategy.


Extreme events


Assessment of the projected climate change impacts at national level– Multi-sectoral: several Countries.– Integrated approach: only a few Countries.

Standard IPCC climate & socio-economic scenarios– Climate scenarios: GCM, RCM – Socio-economic scenarios: IPCC SRES


National Impact Scenarios


A National Adaptation Strategy exists only in FINLAND; Adaptation Strategies are under preparation in FRANCE, UK and NORWAY. – Most of the other existing adaptation measures focus on:

flood defense, natural hazards prevention, environment protection and sustainable resource management.

Long-term planned proactive adaptation is still to be implemented by most of the European Countries.– European Countries need to develop adaptation measures

mostly in the sectors: health, water resources management, ecosystem’s management.


National adaptation Strategy


EU Climate policy: mainly focused on mitigation– Mitigation

• EU-wide Carbon trading scheme• European Commission target of 2 °C• EU Action Plan on climate change

– Adaptation• EU Commission: proactive and reactive adaptation & climate

related risks • ECCP’s working group on adaptation

National Climate Research


Climate research landscape


Extended Country ReportMAIN OUTCOMES

National Programmes on Climate Change

Most (89%) of the considered European Countries (18) have a National Programme on CC Impacts & Adaptation.

Almost all the Programmes (92%) encompass basic climate science (climate, climate change, climate protection);Most of them (84%) focus on climate change impacts assessment; A lower part of them (64%) covers adaptation issues, too.

24

64

84

92

0 20 40 60 80 100

Basic climate science

CC impacts assessment

Other

To

pic

s

Adaptation to CC

Focus of research

Occurrence (%)

11%

89%

Countries with a Programme

Countries without a Programme


Provide an up-to-date complete and basic knowledge on climate change impacts and adaptation initiatives within Europe.

Document key facts of existing National Programmes, including scientific content as well as management and financial aspects.

Exchange knowledge and experiences to learn from each other, assist identifying best practices and finally promote cooperation.

Extended Country Report WHAT TO EXPECT


Extended Country ReportWHAT TO EXPECT

The Executive Summary gives a direct overview of the key findings

CIRCLE ESSENTIAL OBJECTIVE: “Facilitate the research needed by European and National decision makers to design effective yet economically efficient and feasible adaptation strategies”.

CIRCLE will continue investigating these features in depth within its ongoing tasks, keeping them up-to-date.

http://www.circle-era.net/results/ Link: ‘national research programmes on Climate Change’

Link: ‘executive summary of national research programmes on Climate Change’


Report on Dissemination Practices (UBA, Austria)

Extended Programme Administration & Management Report (SEPA, Sweden)

Report on Projects Evaluation & Selection Practices (INGV / MATT, Italy)

Other recent results


Overview on the current dissemination practices applied by the CIRCLE participating Programmes

– Programmes & Projects Promotion: • Overall Information• Website• Brochures / Newsletter/ Reports• Events• Media

NEXT WORK:

“Best practices” “Differences and similarities”

Report on Dissemination Practices

Joint CallJoint Call



PROGRAMME DISSEMINATION & COMMUNICATION STRATEGY

42%

37%

21%

Have a strategy

NO strategyPlan a strategy

PROGRAMME INVOLVEMENT OF STAKEHOLDERS

26%74%

Do not involve stakeholders

Involve stakeholders

PROGRAMME WEB SITE

32%

68%Have a web site

Do not have a web site

BROCHURES / NEWSLETTERS / CALLS

74% 26%

NOYES



MEDIA

32%

68%

Not promoted through media

Promoted in media

32%

68%

Not promoted through events

Promote themselves in events

PROGRAMME EVENTS

http://www.circle-era.net/results/ Link: ‘dissemination practices of national

research programmes on Climate change’


Review and analysis of programme management procedures of the participating research programmes

– Programme Development and Overall Information– Programme Execution – Project Monitoring

This work is IN PROGRESS and will be finalized soon!

NEXT WORK:

“Differences and similarities” “Most promising practices”

Programme Administration & Management Report



PROGRAMME DEVELOPMENT

Funding body: all the reported Programmes (19) are funded by governmental bodies

Main motive triggering Programme development: gaps of knowledge detected by Programme owners and/or Scientists.

Stakeholder involvement: high (74% of the reported Programmes )

Gender perspective: low (only a 26% of the Programmes consider gender equality in the evaluation of proposals)

International cooperation: foremost cooperation on research at a scientific level but also in the evaluation process



PROGRAMME EXECUTION: INTRODUCTION TO THE EVALUATION OF PROJECTS PROPOSALS

Eligibility: – Eligible applicants: Universities, governmental and private research

institutes, private companies– Eligible Projects: all types of research (basic, applied, interdisciplinary)

Most important Evaluation Criteria:– Formal criteria: application form, deadline, consortium and cost– Textual criteria: scientific excellence, consortium expertise, innovation,

trans- and inter-disciplinary research and quality of proposal Language of the calls:

– Half of the Programmes uses National language only, the other half both National language and English



PROGRAMME EXECUTION: EVALUATION OF PROJECTS PROPOSALS

– Main expenses: salaries for scientists and for lab. personnel & assistants; but also: equipment, field campaigns, travels, outreach

– Possibility to include/fund foreign partners:


Within the 63%:• 33% can fund/include

foreign partners but under special conditions

• 17% can include foreign partners but without financial support.

32%

63%

5%No info

YES

NO


PROJECT MONITORING

Operators: foremost external experts

Monitoring of quality, finances and management: very differentiated (Progress report, Final report, Midterm evaluation, Final evaluation, Post evaluation)

Control of finances: differentiated (special reports)



Overview and analysis on the current Project Evaluation and Selection procedures applied by the CIRCLE participating National Programmes– Projects Evaluation

– Overall Information

– Evaluators

– Evaluation process

– Evaluation criteria

– Review

This work is IN PROGRESS and will be finalized soon!

NEXT WORK “best practices” “differences and similarities” “criteria of greatest importance”

Report on Projects Evaluation & Selection procedures


– Projects Selection

– Research topics

– Projects Selection process


Report on Projects Evaluation & Selection procedures

FLEXIBILITY to A NEW JOINT CALL

26%

32%

42%

Flexible

Not flexibleNo info42%

PROJECTS EVALUATION PROCESS

5%11%

47%

37%

Two-step procedureOne-step procedure

Both the procedures No info

37%

PROJECTS EVALUATION CRITERIA

27

53

79

0 20 40 60 80

1

2

3

Scientific Excellence

Relevance for stakeholders

Scientific quality Imp

ort

an

ce

(1

=h

igh

es

t)

Most Important Evaluation criteria

Occurrence (%)


Report on Projects Evaluation & Selection proceduresPROJECTS PROPOSALS EVALUATORS

5%

63%

32%

External

Both External & Internal

Internal

OPEARTOR OF PROJECT SELECTION

26%

58% 16%

No info

Funding body Other entity

SELECTION OF RESEARCH TOPICS

5%

37%

5%16% Bottom-up defined programme

Predefined by top-down programme

Combination of the others

No info

32%

Open


CIRCLE’s little helpers -1

CIRCLEHomepage



CIRCLE Newsletter– 1st issue has just

been sent– Will be published every

2-3 months– Possibly one larger

CIRCLE journal per year– Subscription via

CIRCLE homepage



CIRCLE Intranet (CIRCA) (information repository)– For working documents– Reduces Email

attachment traffic– Access for all interested

colleagues– If you wish to have

access, please let us know



Access the CIRCLEresearch databaseFuture perspective

CIRCLE’s joint database:

- Under construction

- Integration with BiodivERsA, SKEP and probably IWRM.Net

- Information for both the programme and the project level

Date post:	20-Dec-2015
Category:	Documents
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

Part 3: ERA-Net CIRCLE Climate Impact Research Coordination for a Larger Europe FFCUL, Lisboa Martin...

Documents