Experiences of the environmental ERANets in joint callstransnational research programs

1
Experiences of the environmental ERA-Nets in
joint calls/transnational research programs

• ERA-Net Helsinki Workshop

Olga Mashkina, SYKE
2

• ".. This call has been a fantastic process of
  learning on each other procedures and
  administrative culture, which constitutes a
  strong step forward towards a European Research
  Area

3
Why do we do this research?

• Majority of ERA-Nets are carrying out joint
  calls, and they face different barriers and find
  different solutions.
• Several ERA-Nets have developed their best
  practices and guidelines.
• Learning from experiences and developing the best
  practices of ERA-Nets in joint calls.
• Learning platform ERA-Net Watch
• What is the future of ERA-Nets?

4
Our study of ERA-Nets experiences in joint calls
aims to

• analyze formal and informal barriers for
  effective planning and management of
  transnational research programmes of
  environmental ERA-Nets.
• analyze how intercultural differences affect the
  management of the joint calls
• learn what happened in practice in ERA-Nets when
  they planned and implemented the joint
  calls/research programmes.
• identify best practices for management of ERA-Net
  joint calls to avoid barriers in the future.

5
Research data
What can we learn from experiences best practices
and a theory
How things have been planned
How things really went in the joint call
ERA-Nets publications, survey of 16
environmental ERA-Nets
Survey and case studies SKEP, BiodivERsA, BONUS
Helsinki Workshop experiences and best
practices

• Agreement on funding and themes
• Proposal evaluation
• Intercultural differences
• Formal national regulations
• User- orientation/ communication
• Ex-post evaluation

6
Benefits and barriersLessons learned

• Majority see the benefits of ERA-Nets joint calls
• Some doubts about added value of joint calls in
  comparison to national calls
• Do environmental ERA-Nets have more advantages? -
  no unanimity
• Main barriers are political unwillingness,
  limitations of national funding regulations,
  uneven benefits from common pot for partners,
  finding the common and topic and timeline.
• Challenging different nature of ERA-Net partners
• Cultural differences, complexity of coordination
  and administrative costs were not significant
  challenges.

7
Funding structureLessons learned

• Virtual pot funding structure dominates (77),
  common pot - 8 and mixed mode - 23 of
  respondents.
• Agreeing on funding is more difficult then other
  stages of joint call.
• Challenging different national funding policy-
  less participate,
• In the implementation stage there are less
  problems with formal national regulations.
• Partners' participation even if not funding no
  unanimity among respondents
• Links between ERA-Nets and same organizations in
  different ERA-Nets is additional value, but can
  be challenging due to budget limitation

8
Overall managementLessons learned

• General perception of management was good
• Scoping for funders is more challenging than
  other parts
• A vicious circle without themes no budget,
  without budget no involvement in theme
  development.
• Overall consultation process was successful
  (84).
• Challenging possibility to influence funding
  structure
• Ad-hoc basis for solving problems challenges and
  benefits

9
Coming to agreement on themes selectionLessons
learned

• a lengthy process, but worth it and input of
  research users is crucial
• Respondents generally feel that they had enough
  possibility to affect the decision and satisfied
  with the process
• Challenges themes need to be broad and narrow
  enough at the same time, also avoiding potential
  overlapping, fit both researchers and funding
  agencies

10
Coming to agreement on proposal evaluation
procedure. Lessons learned

• Common formalized procedure for proposal
  evaluation
• Evaluation panels representation who decides?
• Challenging agreeing on evaluation focus,
  differences in national priorities for policy and
  science (nature of partners)
• How to deal with a conflict of interests
• Different standards for gender equality
• Proposal evaluation is more difficult than in
  national calls

11
Comparison of finding consensus in national
programs and in joint calls

• agreeing about duration of program is most
  similar with national programmes, agreeing on
  funding structure and proposal evaluation is more
  difficult.

12
Reaching end-usersLessons learned

• about 12-16 of ERA-Net respondents didn't have
  any cooperation with end-users during any stage
  of joint call.
• ERA-Nets have defined their end users either
  formally (36) or informally (52), 12 didn't
  not define their end-users
• about 11 plan to or established a separate
  national body to enhance collaboration with the
  end -users
• In some ERA-Nets end users can be more
  influential (i.e. ministries, commissions etc.)
• Research users had enough involvement only in the
  selection of topics out of all stages of research
  programme

13
End-users involvement
14
Using the resultsLessons learned

• Separate Work Packages on communication and
  dissemination.
• 45 of respondents prepared a formal
  dissemination plan, 33 are in the progress, and
  16 have no formal dissemination plan.
• Workshops/seminars and publications as well as
  scientific publications are the most common
• use of the communication methods vary in
  different countries
• Challenging lack of interpretation (serious
  problems by 15 of respondents)
• Role of steering committee in dissemination
  varies

15
Programme evaluationLessons learned

• 54of respondents have a formal procedure for the
  systematic evaluation of the research programme,
  others use informal processes, feedbacks and etc.
  
• Challenging defining focus of the programme
  evaluation (scientific quality, user
  orientation or cost effectiveness)
• Formal procedure reports, mid-term seminars,
  evaluation at the end of the ERA-Net projects
• Not many ERA-Nets have research users in their
  programme evaluation panels
• If programme evaluation is not planned and funds
  for it are not allocated from the beginning of
  research programme, there is a possibility of
  failure of carrying it out due to the closure of
  ERA-Nets.

16
Overcoming national differences

• Challenges different traditions and ways to fund
  research, differences between various agencies in
  ERA-Net.
• Scientists collaborated together before, but the
  funding agencies not it is more challenging
  than national differences
• National differences in the bureaucracy levels
  most challenging
• Differences in human resource management and
  quality of the research results were not a
  problem
• There are certain similarities among opinions of
  the respondents based on country of origin of the
  ERA-Net respondent

17
Goals for workshop

• What can be learned from experiences in ERA-Net
  joint call?
• What problems are common for all are solutions
  common?
• What problems are specific how is solved in
  particular case.
• How to deal with overlapping
• Looking into the future developing common
  guidelines / best practices for future ERA-Nets
  and role of the Commission

18
Thank you!

• Any questions, comments?
• Discussion of many of the issues mentioned will
  follow in the work groups.

19
Work GroupsInstructions
20
Workgroups

• Presentations from ERA-Net coordinators
• Morning
• Planning the joint call defining the rules of
  the call
• Defining the stakeholders of the joint call
• Afternoon
• Learning from national programmes and between
  ERA-Nets
• Development of common evaluation and use of
  evaluation results
• Group discussions (45 min)
• division into 5 groups according to the number in
  the left corner on the back side of your name
  tag.
• Among your group you should choose the chair and
  speaker
• Presentations of the workgroups (5 min each
  group)
• Synthesis and discussion (45 min)

21
Issues to discuss

• What were successful practices that could be
  useful for future ERA-Nets, discuss and list as
  much as possible, then agree with your group
  members and come up with 5 clear statements
  (prioritise).
• What was most challenging and how could it be
  overcame? Discuss and list as much as possible,
  then agree with your group members and come up
  with 5 clear statements.
• What are 3 things you would do differently?
• You can use computers, flip charts and worksheets
  to capture your results