1. MICROKELVIN Kickoff Meeting Helsinki 2 th - 4 th April 2009 Maria Douka European Commisssion, DG RTD

2. Definition of Research Infrastructures Facilities, resources, services used by scientific community for –Development of leading-edge research –Knowledge transmission, knowledge exchanges and knowledge preservation Includes –Major equipment –Scientific collections, archives and structured information –ICT-based infrastructures –Entities of a unique nature, used for research

3. Objectives of the Community Research Infrastructures actions infrastructures existing Tackling better fragmentation by optimising the use and development of the best research infrastructures existing in Europe (Integrating Activities) lCatalysing effect towards the Construction or major upgrade of Research Infrastructures l Developing a vision for the next 10-20 years by fostering capacity building and excellence (Support to Policy Development)

4. Reminder: Todays budgetary constraints

5. Preparatory Phase l10 topics corresponding to the 10 new ESFRI projects in the Roadmap 2008 èEISCAT_3D upgrade èEPOS èSIAEOS èECCSEL èEMBRC èEU-Openscreen èEuroBioImaging èBSL4 Laboratory èEMFL èCTA lBudget of 45 M, call to be published in Sep. 2009 Environmental Sciences Energy Biological and Medical Sciences Materials & Analytical Facilities Physical Sci. & Engineering

6. Support Measures lERA-NET supporting cooperation of MS and AS for RIs (policy) in all S&T fields (from 1 to 2 M) lStudies, conferences and roundtables for RI policy in all S&T fields (from 0.2 to 1 M) èSupporting impact assessments of RIs èStrengthening cooperation of European RIs with third countries èSupporting other important policy developments lBudget of 10 M, call to be published in Sep. 2009

7. Integrating Activities Overall strategy lA targeted approach: èTo focus on strategic priorities èTo make the most efficient use of the very limited budget available

8. Identification of topics lA draft list of topics, based on: èScientific landscapes established by ESFRI RWGs èPublished national roadmaps (DK, FR, IE, NO, ES, SE, UK; as well as third countries such as AU, USA) èOther policy documents (CERN, SCAR, etc.) èCurrently funded I3/Integrating Activity projects and Coordination Actions (FP6 and FP7) èUnfunded proposals and/or topics from last bottom- up calls lA one-day workshop with 40 high-level experts, to ensure that these topics correspond to recognised needs and priorities lFurther input from the FP7 thematic priorities, and DG INFSO

9. Expert workshop lWork carried out in 6 thematic sub-groups lExperts were asked to: èGive a motivated opinion in support for or against the proposed topics èGive advice, when appropriate, for better defining the focus and phrasing of the proposed topics èIndicate any missing priority topic èHelp establish the timing of the topics for the 3 calls

10. Integrating Activities Approach Three calls for proposals : èFor each of the three calls, a list of defined topics èEach topic corresponding to one project, for one class of Research Infrastructures e.g.: "Research Vessels", "Virus archives", "Historical archives… èMore topics will be listed in the three calls foreseen, than can be funded (~40), to ensure competition Maximum EC contribution: è10 M, for WP 2010 (Duration of projects: 4 years) èFor WP 2011, possibility of 15-20 M restricted to analytical research infrastructures serving large communities of scientists from diverse scientific fields.

11. Distribution of the topics between calls Call A Published Sep. 2009 Call B Jan. 2011 Call C Jan. 2012 36 topics Expected number of funded projects: ~ 18-20 Budget: ~ 160 M Budget: ~ 100 M Budget: ~90 M 21 topics Expected number of funded projects: ~ 10 21 topics Expected number of funded projects: ~ 12

12. Timing for WP 2010 lBy the end of February 2009: èInput needed from PC Members: Informal agreement, with possible corrections to the topic descriptions, and possible missing priority topics èInput from PCs of Thematic priorities l6 March: Draft WP sent to Programme Committee l20 March: Discussion of draft WP at PC meeting l30 March: Finalisation of draft WP lMay-June: ISC and consultation of the PC l29 July: Commissions decision l4 September: Publication of Call (deadline 4 Dec.)

13. Next steps lJanuary-February 2010: Evaluation of proposals from the 2009 call (closed on Dec. 4) lMarch 2010: Results presented to PC Members lApril 2010: WP 2011 to be finalised èIt is very critical to already reflect on topics for WP 2011 èThe proposed timing would allow to take into consideration the results from the 2009 call

14. Impact of EU Support Actions for RI in FP6 Economic Impact Key findings: Some evidence of projects having had an impact on relations with industry partners Changes in the level of industry participation not prominent Joint projects with industry were realised within few projects Some evidence of industry having benefited from the RIs Little evidence of projects having produced commercialisable outcomes Some evidence of scientists moving to employment in industry Key conclusions: Difficult to determine factors of the FP6 RI programme that influence achievement of economic and industry impacts Investment linked with construction and design positively influenced industry participation in projects

15. Impact of EU Support Actions for RI in FP6 Societal impacts Key findings: Most projects had public dissemination strategy in place A minority of projects had realised some form of liaison with local communities Concrete examples of wider societal impacts were very limited and tended to focus on medical advances, the environment and/or safety issues Key conclusions: Evidence of possible future realisation of impacts upon wider society but little actual impact systematically being achieved Liaison with local communities is important but ultimately not enough to ensure wider societal impacts from this type of investment

16. Impact of EU Support Actions for RI in FP6 European Added Value & Structuring of ERA Key findings: European funding enabled certain activities that would not have been possible otherwise Commission funding increased RIs visibility that helped to establish research fields at European level Researchers from New Member States were more involved in European communities and networks than before There was an increase in the degree to which researchers networked The European support has enabled scientists, particularly in the NMS, to undertake new, more or better research

17. Impact of EU Support Actions for RI in FP6 European Added Value & Structuring of ERA Key conclusions: EC funding increased the visibility of participant organisations and generated operational as well as wider European Added Value through support to activities otherwise not viable at European or International level EC funding enforced the structuring of the ERA via the strengthening and support to networking of researchers and through encouraging involvement of New Member states

18. Scientific Excellence ImplementationImpacts Science Frontier research Research services Knowledge creation Europe European S&T challenges Governance European leadership Growth Grand Challenges Research- innovation bridge Socio- economic impacts