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

2. 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)

3. 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

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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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.

9. 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

10. 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

14. WORK DOCUMENTS !

19. 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.

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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.

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

25. 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