European Roadmaps for Research Infrastructures presentation by Hans Chang (chair ESFRI) (1st meeting ESFRI Steering Groups, autumn 2005)

2 WHAT IS ESFRI? ESFRI is a forum where persons closely involved in national + EU decision-making about major facilities/infrastructures meet ESFRI is not a lobby-group for more large facilities or not ESRFI’s ambitions are presented on the last slide (no. 16)

3 Overall Aim Requirement for “European View” to inform Member States and the European Commission on the matrix of opportunities => better decisions by (group of ) Member states + EU Several Member States are producing national roadmaps with differing degrees of robustness Example from USA: Department of Energy (DOE) has published a twenty-year vision for large infrastructures

4 Benefits of European Roadmap Identify those infrastructures to be provided or upgraded in order to meet the need of European researchers to conduct leading edge research Providing a focus for long term budgetary planning by funders Preventing over-provision of facilities in particular areas Basis for strategic prioritisation by Member States and European Commission : useful tool for decision makers Identifying and nucleating research European research communities

5 An ESFRI Approach Member States should share current national roadmaps and processes on a yearly basis All opportunities should be identified although different communities are at different stages of maturity Outputs from existing “formal” groups should not be duplicated (however specific user or “interest” groups need to be seen as contributing to input but not setting roadmap outcomes) ESFRI should, in its incubator role, not prioritise and not decide on location, but should give Member States and European Commission an idea of maturity and international impact Negotiations and decisions about plans and location will take place later, outside ESFRI

6 Plans for Facilities Most plans for a major infrastructure present a: - Science case (views users) - Technical case (feasibility; technical challenges) - Business case (including alternatives; costs; time-horizons) Some plans describe socio-economic consequences, in particular when the location of a facility is an important issue ESFRI Roadmaps focus on the first aspects, and will leave the study of socio-economic consequences to the decision and negotiation-phase (post-ESFRI)

7 Way Forward ESFRI will be advised by 3 Steering Groups that cover: –Physical Sciences and Engineering Chair : John Wood (UK) –Biological and Medical Sciences Chair : Ruth Barrington (IE) –Social Sciences and Humanities Chair : Bjorn Henrichsen (NO) Cross cutting infrastructure (e.g. libraries and synchrotrons) should be allocated to one lead steering group that must consult other relevant groups as appropriate

8 Steering Groups should : –Assess current national roadmaps and other relevant analyses (e.g. from ESF) –Identify existing formal groups (e.g. NuPECC – Long Range Plan 2004) –Identify gaps and create expert groups to follow strict stagegate guidelines to produce evidence and advice that follow transparent processes. (ESFRI to agree on process stagegate before a specific infrastructure officially joins roadmap) Way Forward (1)

9 –Where there are no existing groupings (e.g.in social sciences or the humanities), then these need to be identified to allow communities to form. There could be a role in providing facilitation (e.g. help from more experienced communities, use of existing EU funded networks,…) Way Forward (2)

10 Membership of Steering Groups Chairs should be selected from members of ESFRI and provide reports to ESFRI meetings Member States and European Commission to nominate a representative to each Steering Group Infrequent meetings (possibly alongside existing ESFRI meetings) to ensure expert groups are following guidelines and checking process outcomes

11 Expert Groups Nominated by Member States and European Commission (e.g. FEL working group of ESFRI) Members must be experts, committed, undertake transparent consultation and follow stagegate criteria Include non-european experts where appropriate

12 Criteria for Entering Process Must be a major infrastructure for that particular scientific community Must be a multi-user facility with its own research programme Must be of pan-European interest Plan for new facility presented (if possible) as indicated in slide 6

13 Further Criteria (1)  Research programme agreed by the appropriate community  Technologically feasible Relevance to other existing and developing international facilities Estimated construction, operating and decommissioning costs Require multi-annual funding

14 Appropriate management structure Impact on human capacity and training Potential contribution to other socio-economic objectives Mechanisms for member states to join at the start or during operation etc. Further Criteria (2)

15 Embryonic Ideas Immature areas should be identified early and tracked via an opportunities list that is updated on a regular basis Each steering group will agree when an opportunity (embryonic idea) enters the stagegate process

16 ESFRI AMBITIONS To publish first attempts of ESFRI Roadmaps in 2005 with the objective of yearly updates as different areas mature. The making of Roadmaps will be an ongoing process. To act then as an incubator for concrete decisions by (groups of) Member States and/or European Commission on specific projects or for concrete decisions by (groups of) research councils