The European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures: some current issues and actions Giorgio Rossi Member Executive Board Co.Po.RI 12-13 February 2013, Bruxelles Strategy Report on Research Infrastructures Roadmap 2010

Mission of ESFRI: update Strategy on RI development and sustainability Current Issues Mission of ESFRI: update Strategy on RI development and sustainability (assessment, evaluation methods and practices, implementation) ESFRI’s roadmap process: new edition in 2015 (evaluation of projects, gap analysis, selection of new projects ) Internationalization vs. Regional Issues (role of global RIs GSO-G8+5, role of Regional RIs, role of Partner Facilities, Concentrations)

A stimulation and incubator role The Roadmap Mandate The Competitiveness Council of the EU mandated ESFRI on November 2004 to develop a strategic roadmap in the field of RI for Europe The ESFRI roadmap identifies new pan-European Research Infrastructures (RIs) or major up-grades to existing ones, corresponding to the needs of European research communities in the next 10 to 20 years, regardless of possible location First Roadmap in 2006 Update in Dec 2008 A stimulation and incubator role Update in Dec 2010

Numbers GDP 1212 Euro in 2011 GDP PPP 25 000 Euro 501 Million people DE 2.712 Euro 81 Million people I 1.5812 Euro 61.5 Million people GERD UE 2% 240 G€ Expenditure in RI: 10 G€ per year With ESFRI >12 G€ per year 0.04% of GERD increase due to ESFRI projects (realized) + 0.08 % of GERD ESFRI contributes to 0.005% to the Lisbon goal of 3% GDP

ESFRI Roadmap Results From more than 260 proposals, 50 projects have been identified through several review stages between 2006 and 2010 Projects meeting the “grand challenges” 10 of the projects are in the implementation phase and further 16 are proceeding towards the implementation phase until end of 2012 “By 2015, Member States together with the Commission should have completed or launched the construction of 60% of the priority European Research Infrastructures currently identified by ESFRI”, Innovation Union Flagship Initiative

ESFRI Roadmap 2010 48 new - or major upgrade of - Research Infrastructures of pan-European interest (+ 3 additional projects from the CERN Council strategic roadmap for particle physics*) Social Sc. & Hum. ( 5 ) Life Sciences ( 13 ) Environmental Sciences ( 9 ) Energy ( 7 ) Material and Analytical Facilities ( 6 ) Physics and Astronomy ( 10 ) e-Infra- structures (1) SHARE BBMRI ELIXIR ICOS EURO-ARGO ECCSEL EUROFEL ELI TIARA* PRACE European Social Survey ECRIN INFRA FRONTIER LIFEWATCH IAGOS WindScanner EMFL SPIRAL2 CTA CESSDA INSTRUCT EATRIS EMSO EPOS EU-SOLARIS European XFEL E-ELT SKA CLARIN EU-OPENSCREEN EMBRC SIAEOS EISCAT_3D JHR ESRF Upgrade KM3NeT FAIR DARIAH Euro BioImaging ERINHA BSL4 Lab COPAL IFMIF NEUTRON ESS SLHC-PP* ILC-HIGRADE* ISBE MIRRI HiPER ILL20/20 Upgrade ANAEE MYRRHA   Distributed research infrastructures Single sited research infrastructures

ESFRI Projects Area Roadmap 2010 Implemented Social Science and Humanities (SSH) 2 3 Environmental Sciences (ENV) 9 Biological and Medical Sciences (BMS) 13 Energy 6 1 Engineering, Physical Sciences, Materials and Analytical Facilities (EPS) 8 5 E-Infrastructures

Projects are considered to be ‘under implementation’ when: Agreed legal provisions, like statutes, are present A stable legal governance structure is in place There is budget commitment for the different stages of the RI The EC has set up an Expert Group on Assessment of the ESFRI projects. The members of the Expert Group are high level managers expert in setting up and managing RIs This group will assess the financial and managerial maturity of SOME (13) of the projects of the ESFRI roadmap.

EGA to develop Assessment Matrix Cost Structure and Financial Commitment Scientific and Legal management HR policy Project management R&D policy and stakeholders User strategy Technical Feasibility and Risks EGA: Antonella Calvia-Goetz (Chair) Alfonso Franciosi Johannes Marks Sine Larsen Karl Tichmann Richard Wade Milena Zič-Fuchs

pan-European relevance elements of pan-European relevance Providing scientific/ technological cutting edge and managerial excellence Have a clear pan-European added value (at least 30% of users coming from non-host countries) Provide top-level services and training possibilities for young scientists Projects selected by peer review since demand exceeds supply Results published in the public domain

WORK DOCUMENTS !

Daniel Deybe’s proposal to the EG (December 2012) Ex-ante indicators Ex-post indicators (as the TOR of the group indicates that they should be the first deliverable) General objectives Specific objective of the underling action related to the indicator presented in the original indicator's column (column B) Operational objective (they will probably be RI specific, but we could reflect further) ERA action (the quote of the respective action in the ERA Communication) to indicate the "policy" link ERA indicator (the status on these indicators will be presented in the ERA progress report every year)   Most of the ex-ante indicators relate to "provisions" to help ensuring achieving the objective(s) whilst the ex-post indicators are measurable. The Group could also help identifying the ("essential") criteria for each provision, which could help "standardising" the approaches for the ex-ante assessments.

3.1. Uniqueness in the landscape at global or ERA level.   Indicator Objective ERA Communication Uniqueness ESFRI Criterion Indicators How to use Ex ante Ex post General Specific Operational ERA action ERA indicator Added value 3.1. Uniqueness in the landscape at global or ERA level. Reference to global landscape of existing or planned infrastructures. Mapping importance of Ris in the field worldwide (use bibliometrics or patents as criteria) * Mapping importance of RIs in the field worldwide (use bibliometrics or patents as criteria) * Improve the European Added value of investments in research infrastructures Optimal role in global and/or ERA landscape by developing a given field of relevant interdisciplinary research RI specific On the basis of the information supplied by Member States, map activities in agreed priority areas, with a view to identifying strengths, weaknesses, gaps and duplications Indicator on Mapping (TBC) Competitiveness 3.2. Advantage of the new RI with respect to existing upgradeable facilities dedicated to the same general scope, both in terms of absolute novelty and raise of scientific potential, at EU and global level. EU competitiveness may require “me too”-RIs with only gradual improvement over US or Asian competitors. EU may require higher capacity of research in a given field and one could pursue “uniqueness” at EU-27 level of abundance of a given kind of facility. Provisions for attracting and ensuring access to EU and international staff/users/Ph.D students and Post-docs Provisions for the peer-review evaluation of proposals Share of worlwide publications in the field by RI's staff, users and PhDs/post Docs * Share of international patents in the field by RI's staff, users and PhDs/post Docs ** Share of top 10% publications in the field by RI staff and users * Share of non-participating nationals among total users Share of projects whose proposals received excellent scores (* and **) Improve collaboration between top EU/intl. scientists and managers Create critical pan-European mass in the field and managing it at the required level of excellence and leadership. - Remove legal and other barriers to cross-border access to Research Infrastructures - Develop in cooperation with ESFRI, e-IRG and other stakeholders a Charter of Access setting out common standards and harmonized access rules and conditions for the use of RIs - Share of non-national researchers (from Member States, Associated Countries and Third Countries) accessing RI of European Interest - Assessment of implementation of policies to facilitate cross-border access to RIs - Indicator related with the Charter of Access Provisions for dissemination of results Share of publications/data in open access and/or repositories Improve dissemination of results at global or ERA level (MS should) define and coordinate their policies on access to and preservation of scientific information - Assessment of the degree of implementation of OA and preservation policies related to scientific publications - Assessment of the degree of implementation of OA and preservation policies related to research data Collaboration at level of top EU/intl. scientists and managers EU and international staff attracted to create critical pan-European mass for doing the RI and managing it at the required level of excellence and leadership. Is the RI endorsed/backed by the leading EU/World scientist in the field ? Is the RI capable to effectively attract top scientists and top managers to actually build and run it ? 4. Provisions for attracting and ensuring access to EU and international staff/users/Ph.D students and Post-docs Share of worlwide publications in the field by RI's staff, users and PhDs/post Docs * Share of international patents in the field by RI's staff, users and PhDs/post Docs ** Share of top 10% publications in the field by RI staff and users * Share of non-participating nationals among total users Provisions for management structure Audits of management structure (The Commission will w)ork with ESFRI to set priorities for implementing the Roadmap and to provide advice and guidance to Member States on overcoming legal, financial or technical obstacles to implementation

3.1. Uniqueness in the landscape at global or ERA level.   Indicator Objective ERA Communication Uniqueness ESFRI Criterion Indicators How to use Ex ante Ex post General Specific Operational ERA action ERA indicator Added value 3.1. Uniqueness in the landscape at global or ERA level. Reference to global landscape of existing or planned infrastructures. Mapping importance of Ris in the field worldwide (use bibliometrics or patents as criteria) * Mapping importance of RIs in the field worldwide (use bibliometrics or patents as criteria) * Improve the European Added value of investments in research infrastructures Optimal role in global and/or ERA landscape by developing a given field of relevant interdisciplinary research RI specific On the basis of the information supplied by Member States, map activities in agreed priority areas, with a view to identifying strengths, weaknesses, gaps and duplications Indicator on Mapping (TBC) Competitiveness 3.2. Advantage of the new RI with respect to existing upgradeable facilities dedicated to the same general scope, both in terms of absolute novelty and raise of scientific potential, at EU and global level. EU competitiveness may require “me too”-RIs with only gradual improvement over US or Asian competitors. EU may require higher capacity of research in a given field and one could pursue “uniqueness” at EU-27 level of abundance of a given kind of facility. Provisions for attracting and ensuring access to EU and international staff/users/Ph.D students and Post-docs Provisions for the peer-review evaluation of proposals Share of worlwide publications in the field by RI's staff, users and PhDs/post Docs * Share of international patents in the field by RI's staff, users and PhDs/post Docs ** Share of top 10% publications in the field by RI staff and users * Share of non-participating nationals among total users Share of projects whose proposals received excellent scores (* and **) Improve collaboration between top EU/intl. scientists and managers Create critical pan-European mass in the field and managing it at the required level of excellence and leadership. - Remove legal and other barriers to cross-border access to Research Infrastructures - Develop in cooperation with ESFRI, e-IRG and other stakeholders a Charter of Access setting out common standards and harmonized access rules and conditions for the use of RIs - Share of non-national researchers (from Member States, Associated Countries and Third Countries) accessing RI of European Interest - Assessment of implementation of policies to facilitate cross-border access to RIs - Indicator related with the Charter of Access Provisions for dissemination of results Share of publications/data in open access and/or repositories Improve dissemination of results at global or ERA level (MS should) define and coordinate their policies on access to and preservation of scientific information - Assessment of the degree of implementation of OA and preservation policies related to scientific publications - Assessment of the degree of implementation of OA and preservation policies related to research data Collaboration at level of top EU/intl. scientists and managers EU and international staff attracted to create critical pan-European mass for doing the RI and managing it at the required level of excellence and leadership. Is the RI endorsed/backed by the leading EU/World scientist in the field ? Is the RI capable to effectively attract top scientists and top managers to actually build and run it ? 4. Provisions for attracting and ensuring access to EU and international staff/users/Ph.D students and Post-docs Share of worlwide publications in the field by RI's staff, users and PhDs/post Docs * Share of international patents in the field by RI's staff, users and PhDs/post Docs ** Share of top 10% publications in the field by RI staff and users * Share of non-participating nationals among total users Provisions for management structure Audits of management structure (The Commission will w)ork with ESFRI to set priorities for implementing the Roadmap and to provide advice and guidance to Member States on overcoming legal, financial or technical obstacles to implementation

Regional Issues and Globalization of research infrastructures Improve the efficiency of EU research by optimizing the availability of RIs, improving the mobility of researchers, enforcing full pan-European governance criteria and realizing high and distributed socio-economic benefits from RIs. Analyze the benefits of concentrations (Barcellona, Berlin, Hamburg, Harwell Campus, Lund, Frascati, Grenoble, Villigen, Trieste, Harwell Campus, Saclay…) as well as of territorial distribution. Partnership with pan-European or Global Infrastructures.

Regional Issues and Globalization of research infrastructures Global Research Infrastructures: a G8+5 study where the EU (also through ESFRI) has a stimulating role.

Users number may be a non-universal indicator since absolute numbers may be very different For different infrastructures: virtual, heavy experiments, bio-medical, observatories etc. One possible impact indicator can be the fraction of effort in a given field that is taken by the RI: What is the RI cost with respect to total research investment in that field (n. researchers, n. institutes) What is the science production using the RI as compared to the total science production in the field What is the increase of productivity in the filed with respect to the relative investment Such are some of the indicators that may provide evidence of the good reasond for International and Global Infrastructures