Key words
|
Actions
|
Addressee
|
sustainability
|
Build sustainability and trust in joint programming and the JPIs as it is a long-term process and sustainability of the created structures will be the main condition of success. No short-term solutions, but long-term support.
|
Member States, European Commission
|
sustainability, structural funds
|
Use the Smart Specialisation Strategy process (ERDF) to identify, prioritise and engage in JPI- related research and innovation activities
|
MS, in particular Less research intensive countries (LRIs)
|
ERA
|
Provide a clearer explanation of the ERA landscape and the focus and interdependency of each instrument
|
European Commission
|
sustainability, Horizon 2020
|
Continue to provide CSA support in Horizon 2020
|
European Commission
|
future challenges
|
Continue EFFLA work as a basis for future priority setting
|
European Commission
|
alignment
|
Increasingly inform and align national strategies and research programmes with SRAs
|
Ministries and agencies responsible for RTD programming
|
mutual learning
|
Share experiences in developing and implementing SRAs: mutual learning, sharing best practices, good communication for transparency and inclusiveness
|
JPIs
|
framework conditions, tools
|
Develop mapping tools to support foresight in JPIs
|
JPIs in the lead with the European Commission as facilitator (e.g. through CSA)
|
framework conditions, tools
|
Consider including new topics into FC Guidelines, such as governance
Provide templates, for example, on communication
Develop the FC Guidelines so that they become a „living guidance“ instead of guideline document. The appropriate instrument could be an online helpdesk, structured in modules and providing tools. It should be interactive, centralised and allow brainstorming.
|
JPIs to CoWork and ERALEARN, through continued support from EC funding
|
framework conditions
|
Enhance visibility and promotion of FC guidelines
Support JPI to Co-Work to work for the benefit of JPIs
|
European Commission, GPC
|
mutual learning, Horizon 2020
|
Collect experiences of hurdles and on what works (from bi, tri-lateral programs, ERA-Nets, existing and complementary JPIs)
Distil out the most important issues for common actions
|
JPIs to CoWork and ERALEARN, through continued support from EC funding
|
sustainability, Horizon 2020, alignment
|
Leverage level of resources at both national and EU level
|
JPIs, EC
|
sustainability, countries’ participation
|
Examine in which JPIs sustainable commitment can be maintained
|
Member States, Less research intensive countries
|
stakeholders
|
Greater involve national stakeholders into the JPI process
|
JPIs
|
stakeholders
|
Avoid over-expectation on the side of stakeholders and be more realistic in what can be achieved. Danger of overstretching stakeholders’ capacity exists. Thus, from the Stakeholder perspective smaller, more focussed JPIs would be better at meeting the needs of citizens and society in Europe.
|
General consideration
|
stakeholders
|
Pay special attention to communication and be more creative in the way communication is undertaken
|
JPIs
|
stakeholders
|
Ensure that there is a level of realism in a stakeholder’s ability to engage with JPIs.
|
JPIs
|
industry
|
Encourage JPIs to set up their own strategy towards industry according to their own special requirements (to put it in a long-term perspective - further development after the pre-competitive phase; focusing on achieving real impact)
|
JPIs
|
industry
|
Organize awareness raising events for industry on JPIs
-
At international level (Industry Forum in Brussels)
-
At local level with the support of the national agencies
|
JPIs
|
industry
|
Undertake consultation via the involvement of ETPs, NTPs
|
JPIs
|
industry
|
Undertake more targeted actions, such as, matchmaking events for academy and industry, establishing database(s) to facilitate partnership building etc.
|
JPIs
|
industry
|
Consider new instruments, such as proof of concept, demonstrations, trials
|
JPIs
|
international cooperation
|
Flexibility is needed as coordination on international level adds an extra political layer: questions on the type of stakeholders sitting around the table, on monitoring the process (intergovernmental groups?, global institutions ?), on difference of funding, policies and needs, need to be reflected.
More Flexibility necessary as there is no unique optimal scheme. Extended multidisciplinarity imposes flexible platforms (e.g. JPI Climate) while other JPIs (genome or Alzheimer) might be ready to move to more integration.
|
JPIs
|
industry
|
Policy on big data and on access, relationships with Private sector (from implementation plan onwards) are also key but tractable challenges that need coordination.
|
JPIs, KT Group, GPC (topic for the update of Guidelines for Framework Conditions)
|
countries’ participation
|
Secure good mix of representative institutions with decision-making power
|
LRIs
|
countries’ participation, structural funds
|
Exploit other key instruments and sources (Horizon 2020, SF) but there are certain disadvantages to be tackled
Smart specialisation approach useful BUT several concerns (diverse rationales with JPI and GCs, niche areas (in)compatibility with JPIs, and changes over time)
|
LRIs
|
structural funds, stakeholders
|
Continuous interplay between global and local level: regions should build on their assets such as specialisation, proximity to stakeholders, clusters, etc.
|
Regions
|
countries’ participation
|
Attract LRI countries with pilot activities, in kind contributions, special conditions, access to benefits, flexibility: the extended ‘Knowledge Hub’ concept
The extended ‘knowledge hub’ concept links all JPIs under a framework allowing LRIs access to all types of knowledge produced, capacity building and mobility, and flexibility in their decision at which stage and to which extent to participate or when to step out of a JPI.
|
JPIs, European Commission through CSA
|
impact, mutual learning
|
Impact: Consider the relevance of the JPND methodology
|
JPIs
|
impact, mutual learning
|
Get some insights on indicators in Art185 ex-ante evaluation (example: IMI)
|
JPIs
|
mutual learning
|
It is not necessary to ‘reinvent the wheel’ when implementing joint calls
-
Collaborate with relevant ERA-NETs (marginal investment in process) as many are optimising their joint call processes
-
Create benefits for both parties
|
JPIs
|
impact, evaluation, framework conditions, mutual learning
|
Collaborate on developing common indicators
Harmonised indicators could enable peer benchmarking and learning
|
JPIs to Co Work (continuation?)
|
impact, evaluation
|
Strive for a European Evaluation Culture
|
General consideration
|
sustainability, ERA
|
All those involved in JPIs need to acknowledge that trust is an important component of Joint Programming, and that developing trust takes time. Trust, and therefore time, is needed particularly to engage effectively in Variable Geometry. When the necessary level of trust has been achieved, JPIs should further explore the use of Article 185 and other ERA instruments.
|
JPIs, GPC
|
countries’ participation
|
JPIs need to maintain the principle of Open Access (open participation). They should in addition help to maintain research capacities in those MS who are at risk, in the current economic climate, by ensuring Open Access, for example through specific common calls open to all European researchers.
|
JPIs, GPC
|
focus (?), industry, stakeholders, alignment
|
JPIs should maintain their research focus using trans-disciplinary inputs, including from industry and other societal actors, where appropriate. In the current economic climate, JPIs should ensure that SRAs do not only become aggregations of existing national research programmes, but also include new ideas and approaches.
|
JPIs, GPC
|
communication, impact
|
JPIs should start now highlighting and promoting their achievements, particularly to the national and EU level policy makers in order to demonstrate impact.
|
JPIs, GPC
|
communication, alignment
|
JPIs should be more effective at communicating the SRAs back to all national level organisations in order that the content can be used for the development of national research programmes.
|
JPIs, GPC
|
infrastructures
|
In order to provide better access to and make better use of existing research infrastructures, JPIs should produce inventories and map existing key infrastructures, and promote their shared use to MS.
|
JPIs, GPC
|
Horizon 2020
|
JPIs should start preparing to make “smart” use of H2020 instruments to complement MS funded Joint Calls and actions.
|
JPIs, GPC
|
future challenges, evaluation, framework conditions
|
The GPC should continue to develop its mutual responsibility for and “ownership” of the Joint Programming process. The GPC should consider and prepare a systematic process that can be used for deciding on future challenges. The process should include the use of monitoring, evaluations and other forward looking activities including EFFLA (European Forum on Forward Looking Activities). The GPC should revisit the Voluntary Guidelines on Framework Conditions in order to integrate new operational requirements, including those related to Governance.
|
JPIs, GPC
|
alignment
|
MS should increasingly inform and align national strategies and research programmes with the JPI SRAs. MS should also ensure that national administrations, for example programme owners, programme managers and ministries are sufficiently involved in the JPIs.
|
Member States
|
alignment
|
MS need to acknowledge that acting alone cannot solve societal challenges. MS should invest their resources in order to experience and appreciate the benefits arising from Joint Programming. In current economic climate, reduced research budgets can be used to leverage more impact through JPIs.
|
Member States
|
communication
|
The impressive commitment of person-months for the establishment of JPIs should be recognised at the national level.
|
Member States
|
sustainability, countries’ participation
|
MS should consider how many JPIs they can maintain a sustainable commitment to.
|
Member States
|
countries’ participation, Horizon 2020, structural funds
|
Those MS that are not able to be as involved in JPI research as they would wish should pursue opportunities associated with H2020 themes and with other EU sources of funding. In order to build or strengthen capacity, MS should use the Smart Specialisation Strategy process (ERDF) to identify, prioritise and engage in JPI- related research and innovation activities.
|
Member States
|
ERA
|
The Commission needs to provide greater clarification on the role and focus of each instrument on the ERA landscape, and their respective interdependencies. This will lead to better understanding by MS
|
Commission
|
sustainability, Horizon 2020
|
Resources are available from JPI members to support the JPI secretariats, but the financial independence resulting from CSAs (Coordination and Support Actions) has been important for JPI Secretariats. Support through CSAs should continue in H2020.
|
Commission
|
future challenges
|
Continue the EFFLA work as it could be a supportive partner for the GPC for future priority setting.
|
Commission
|
evaluation
|
The Commission should undertake an evaluation of the JPIs at the end of FP7, and at the mid-term point of H2020.
|
Commission
|
ERA
|
Consider the ERA-FRAME option if the renewed political will, called for in the Commission’s 2012 ERA Communication, does not materialise.
|
Commission
|
Horizon 2020
|
It is envisaged by the Expert Group that JPIs could give useful inputs to the strategic considerations of a related programme committee. A dialogue between the JPIs and the H2020 Programme Committees responsible for each societal challenge should be established. It is both for the Commission and MS to consider how best to organise such a dialogue between JPIs, the Commission and national delegates.
|
Commission
|
alignment, evaluation
|
Step up efforts to implement joint research agendas addressing grand challenges, sharing information about activities in agreed priority areas, ensuring that adequate national funding is committed and strategically aligned at European level in these areas and that common ex post evaluation is conducted.
|
Member States
|
interoperability
|
Ensure mutual recognition of evaluations that conform to international peer-review standards as a basis for national funding decisions
|
Member States
|
interoperability
|
Remove legal and other barriers to the cross-border interoperability of national programmes to permit joint financing of actions including cooperation with non-EU countries where relevant
|
Member States
|
interoperability
|
Agree on common funding principles - eligible costs, reporting requirements, etc. to make national research programmes compatible, interoperable (cross-border) and simpler for researchers
|
Research stakeholder organisations
|
|
Further develop and deploy the Lead-Agency, Money-Follows-Cooperation Line, Money-Follows-Researcher and other models for cross-border cooperation
|
Research stakeholder organisations
|
interoperability
|
Pilot the use of synchronised calls with, where possible, single joint international peer review evaluation of proposals as a basis for funding decisions
|
Research stakeholder organisations
|
Horizon 2020
|
Pursue, stimulate and participate in Public-Public Partnerships to address grand challenges as set out in the Communication on Partnering in Research and Innovation to leverage Member States' contributions and ensure close coordination with relevant activities under Horizon 2020
|
Commission
|
ERA, interoperability
|
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
Support Member States and research funding organisations in implementing joint international peer review evaluations and setting common funding standards - e.g. through an ERA Mark label recognising best practice in cross-border research operations
|
Commission
|
mutual learning, framework conditions, international cooperation, stakeholders, interoperability
|
encourage the implementation of JPIs through learning processes on the use of framework conditions, international cooperation, when and where appropriate the involvement of industry and users, common thematic areas, and through a possible ERA Mark label
|
JPIs, GPC
|
alignment
|
call on JPIs to step up efforts to implement SRAs, ensure that JPIs build upon national programmes, that adequate national resources are committed and strategically aligned at European level in these areas
|
JPIs
|
mutual learning
|
encourage JPIs to build on the success stories and to make good use of them by closely cooperating with each other in a process of mutual learning
|
JPIs
|
countries’ participation
|
encourage JPIs to widen the participation of interested countries
|
JPIs
|
mutual learning, framework conditions, international cooperation, stakeholders, interoperability, alignment, countries’ participation
|
pursue and deepen exchanges between GPC and JPIs on these issues
|
JPIs, GPC
|
tools
|
supports the JPIs in using a wide range of JP tools beside joint calls
|
JPIs
|
Horizon 2020
|
continued support to JPIs main tasks via CSAs in H2020
|
Commission
|
Horizon 2020, alignment
|
complementarity, coherence and alignment between Horizon 2020 and JPIs and their SRAs
|
Commission
|
Horizon 2020
|
transparency, dialogue and synergies: JPIs should act in an advisory role directly to Member States, the Program Committees and the Commission and should help to build up trust between the different actors
|
JPIs, MS, Commission
|
future challenges, sustainability
|
launch a foresight exercise after finishing the discussion of Horizon 2020, taking into account the outcomes of EFFLA. This exercise would consider themes for future JPIs and/or more generally possible challenges to be addressed at European level. This work should be conducted while considering the Member States’ capacity to commit in new initiatives and the impact of already existing JPIs
|
GPC
|
evaluation
|
launch an evaluation of the JPIs after the start of Horizon 2020
|
GPC
|
ERA, Horizon 2020
|
articulation of the different ERA instruments and initiatives developed on similar themes and would like their respective role, coherence and scope to be clarified to avoid redundancies and needless competition. These could apply in particular to the articulation between EIPs, JPIs, Art.185 and the implementation of calls in Horizon 2020, including those on basic and applied research
|
Commission
|
alignment
|
process of coordination of research policies, since it addresses many Joint Programming related issues
|
ERAC, GPC
|
