EUPHRESCO EUropean PHytosanitary REsearch COordination Trans-national research funding for Plant health “Learning by doing” Eric Regouin, et al. – Work Package 3

2 Outline  Introduction and background  Funding mechanisms applied in EUPHRESCO  Tools to aid and support trans-national cooperation  Topic selection

3 Introduction and background (1)  24 partners in 17 participating countries  Research funder/manager or research supplier, or both?  Research providers within, or outside, the state structures – different levels of ‘preferred research supplier’  Differences in available financial resources  Different interests – transit/border country, exporter, agriculture or nature, producer of seeds/propagation material, etc.  National factors influencing abilities to cooperate: legal, budgetary, bureaucratic procedures, etc.

4 Introduction and background (2) EUPHRESCO needed to identify: 1.how to jointly fund a research endeavour; 2.how to administer the process from topic identification to project commissioning; and 3.how to identify a project of common interest.

5 Outline  Introduction and background  Funding mechanisms applied in EUPHRESCO  Tools to aid and support trans-national cooperation  Topic selection

6 How to fund a project? In EUPHRESCO three funding mechanism were tested: 1.“Real common pot” mechanism - RP 2.“Virtual common pot” mechanism - VP 3.“Non-competitive” mechanism - NC

7 How to fund a project? 1. “Real common pot” mechanism Each country provides funds into a real ‘pot’ in a single bank account; the best projects resulting from an open call are funded regardless of the nationality of the researchers involved. There is therefore a trans- national flow of funds. Proposals compete.

8 Pros (and cons) – Real Pot Experience in EUPHRESCO: -No requirement to create a consortium -Two-tier approach to competition – real? competition -Few EUPHRESCO partners involved Strengths: -Explores and exploits unknown research infrastructure -Stimulates novel and excellent research -Acquisition of expertise not available at home Succes: -Two EUPHRESCO projects commissioned

9 How to fund a project? 2. “Virtual common pot” mechanism Each country pays only its own researchers in projects resulting from an open common call. This mechanism too is competitive. Each country commits to providing funds to a virtual pot. There is competition between consortia; there may be competition between national research providers within individual countries. Once the best projects are chosen, the national funder meets the costs of its own researchers through its normal contracting procedures. There is no competition between countries but only between research groups within a country. There is no trans-national flow of funds.

10 Pros (and cons) – Virtual Pot Experience in EUPHRESCO: -All EUPHRESCO partners were involved -At the end of the day: no competing proposals Strengths: -Requires cooperation between research providers -Helps to include partners who are not yet able to participate in the RP mechanism Success: -Five EUPHRESCO projects commissioned

11 How to fund a project? 3. “Non-competitive funding mechanism” A science/research problem or topic area is divided between research groups (preferred research suppliers), organised in a consortium, in different countries according to their expertise; each country pays its own researchers to deliver work to the consortium according to its own mechanisms; results are pooled together by mutual agreement. Such projects are non-competitive. There is no trans-national flow of funds.

12 Pros (and cons) – Non-competitive Experience in EUPHRESCO: -Many EUPHRESCO partners involved; it addressed widely felt needs Strength: -The best known mechanism -Potentially fast to realize; light administrative burden -Non-competitive, therefore no unnecessary investments in writing unsuccessful proposals -Useful for national laboratories in comparing tests and methods Success: -Four EUPHRESCO projects commissioned: and… five more

13 Outline  Introduction and background  Funding mechanisms applied in EUPHRESCO  Tools to aid and support trans-national cooperation  Topic selection

14 Tools 1 All processes, templates, documents, etc. that are needed to go through the process of identifying topics of common interest, and to commission a research project, including explanatory or supportive documentation.

15 Tools 2 Purpose  To enable the necessary administrative procedures  To realize transparency and accountability  To be able to evaluate the process Sources and inspiration  National process tools  EU Framework Programme  Other ERA-nets  Developed, where needed

16 Tools 3 EUPHRESCO activities All tools  were designed for use in the pilot project, and then refined with that experience  are accessible at  can be adapted according to specific situations in future

17 Outline  Introduction and background  Funding mechanisms applied in EUPHRESCO  Tools to aid and support trans-national cooperation  Topic selection

18 Topic Selection Criteria in the ‘pilot stage’ of EUPHRESCO  Only “regulatory plant health” (no crop protection as such)  All EUPHRESCO partners should have an opportunity to participate  A diverse range of topic content  All three funding mechanism should be tested  Preferably at least three partners to support one topic  At least euro available per partner (RP and VP)

19 Topics Real Pot Mechanism Aquatic invasive non-native weeds - Management methods Whole genome DNA amplification methods - Optimisation and implementation of methods

20 Topics Virtual Pot Mechanism Potato spindle tuber viroid (PSTVd) and other viroids - Studies informing risk assessment and risk management Erwinia amylovora - On-site and laboratory diagnostics Ambrosia artemisiifolia - Management and control methods Grapevine flavescence doree phytoplasma - Risk management ‘Kiln drying’ - Efficacy testing

21 Topics Non-Competitive Mechanism Clavibacter michiganensis ssp. sepedonicus and Ralstonia solanancearum Diagnostic ring tests Pantoea stewartii - Diagnostic ring tests Whitefly transmitted viruses - Validation of on-site and laboratory diagnostic methods Globodera pallida/rostochiensis - PCN pathotype identification methods (6)

22 Topics Non-Competitive Mechanism – Second Round of topics Anoplophora detection Phylogenetic Identification of Quarantine Bacterial Plant Pathogens Bacterial diagnostics Fusarium circinatum diagnostics Meloidogyne diagnostics Interlaboratory comparison and validation of detection methods for phytoplasmas of phytosanitary concern in European orchards Potato wart disease

23 Topics On all topics there are posters Have a look!

24 Epilogue Learning by doing? So, what did we learn?  Cooperation follows from knowing each other!  Understanding and acceptance follows cooperation!  Practical problems; legal problems  Is competition always useful?  The different funding mechanisms  How good did we manage to pool national resources?  And, what did YOU conclude from your participation?

25 Acknowledgement Thank you very much for your attention And thank you in particular to the Dutch team Louisa Tan, Paul van den Boogert & Susanne Driessen, to the WP4 colleagues and to all EUPHRESCO partners