Documents

ERA-LEARN 2020 Policy Briefs serve the purpose of providing succinct information on topics that are of vital importance for advancing Public-Public-Partnerships (P2Ps). This policy brief on stakeholder engagement summarizes the current state-of-play of stakeholder engagement among JPIs, highlights existing approaches of engagement, and introduces possible ways to advance stakeholder engagement.

Involvement of a wide range of actors, such as national policy makers, research funding organizations, relevant research communities from academia and industry as well as user communities in Joint Programming Initiatives (JPIs) and other Public-Public-Partnerships (P2Ps) is seen as a key pre-requisite for achieving long-term impact on tackling societal challenges through research and innovation (R&I) actions.

The most recent evaluation of the Joint Programming Process highlighted the view of JPIs that there is a strong need to involve end-users and industry “when facing a societal challenge”. The evaluation concludes that challenge-based R&I needs the active involvement of societal stakeholders and industry to achieve maximum impact.
However, most JPIs “still wonder what would be the best way”. Against this background, this policy brief on stakeholder engagement summarizes the current state-of-play of stakeholder engagement among JPIs, highlights existing approaches of engagement, and introduces possible ways to advance stakeholder engagement.

Template for the collection of project data from co-funded and follow on calls.

Following a report produced in June 2016 regarding Finland’s/AKA’s participation in P2P networks, the Academy of Finland has published a brief report on the impact of P2P collaboration to Finnish researchers.  The report illustrates the significance and impact of such European networks and is based on a survey of researchers that received public-to-public funding through AKA.

The PLATFORM2 project for bioeconomy networks organised a workshop on ‘Monitoring, Evaluation and Impact Assessment of P2P Projects and Networks’ at Copenhagen in June 2017. This included presentations from members of the ERA-LEARN 2020 team that are leading the work package on ‘Monitoring and Impact Assessment’. Angus Hunter presented the results of the Pilot for Centralised Impact Assessment of EU Co-Funded Projects that had been carried out in partnership with the PLATFORM2 team.

Following a report produced in June 2016 regarding Finland’s/AKA’s participation in P2P networks, the Academy of Finland has published a brief report on the impact of P2P collaboration to Finnish researchers.  The report illustrates the significance and impact of such European networks and is based on a survey of researchers that received public-to-public funding through AKA.

The workshop aimed at a better understanding of the current roles and experiences of Public to Public Partnerships (P2Ps) in creating and/or exploiting synergies between European Structural and Investment (ESI) Funds on the one hand, and national, transnational and European Funds for research and innovation (R&I) on the other. Particular emphasis was given to current hindrances with a view of using the lessons learned within the context of the forthcoming programs of ESI and R&I Funds and effectively pursuing smart specialization strategies.

The workshop aimed at a better understanding of the current roles and experiences of Public to Public Partnerships (P2Ps) in creating and/or exploiting synergies between European Structural and Investment (ESI) Funds on the one hand, and national, transnational and European Funds for research and innovation (R&I) on the other. Particular emphasis was given to current hindrances with a view of using the lessons learned within the context of the forthcoming programs of ESI and R&I Funds and effectively pursuing smart specialization strategies.

The workshop aimed at a better understanding of the current roles and experiences of Public to Public Partnerships (P2Ps) in creating and/or exploiting synergies between European Structural and Investment (ESI) Funds on the one hand, and national, transnational and European Funds for research and innovation (R&I) on the other. Particular emphasis was given to current hindrances with a view of using the lessons learned within the context of the forthcoming programs of ESI and R&I Funds and effectively pursuing smart specialization strategies.

This case study examines the key features, outputs and overall strengths and limitations of the New York University Center for Urban Science and Progress, a unique public-private research center, with respect to the coordination of policy challenges posed by modern cities and the research and education activities of a graduate school. CUSP utilizes its big data capabilities to integrate, analyze, and model a variety of data from across city agencies, and develops innovative data tools and infrastructure in order to devise practical, impactful findings and solutions to real-world urban challenges. It demonstrates the effectiveness of a research infrastructure built by joint efforts of academia, city authorities, and industry. Universities and faculty can contribute to practical solutions to urban policy challenges by establishing mutual interest and a common language with city agencies, conducting interdisciplinary research, and applying a transdisciplinary approach and innovative data analysis and modeling tools.

On 6 June 2017 the High Level Group of Joint Programming (GPC) adopted its Opinion on the "Future of Joint Programming to address societal challenges". The Opinion aims at identifying the major challenges and proposing measures for future development, both in view of the mid-term review of Horizon 2020 (H2020) and the preparation of the 9th Framework Programme (FP9) for Research and Innovation. 

For the future, the European Joint Programming Process should be considered with a wider perspective by including, where relevant, other Public-to-Public Partnerships (P2Ps) such as ERA-NETs, EJPs and Art.185 Initiatives. The overall principle of all these forms of collaboration should be a true and deepened partnership between Member States and Associated Countries (MS/AC) and the European Commission (EC) to jointly face the next decade's SCs with a global perspective. The GPC therefore proposes

• to develop an overarching approach for the JPP in the broader context of strategic, mission-driven research and innovation in Europe.
• to further enhance and broaden the commitment and participation in P2Ps in order to ensure their sustainability and to promote national and European coordination, involving both funding and performing organisations.
• to consider a "JP roadmap-model" with regular evaluations in order to get predictability and sustainability for all relevant P2Ps.
• to pay close attention to, and monitor the impact of, P2Ps on alignment and added value for science and society at a national, European and global scale.

The Opinion was prepared following an open consultation and collaboration between the GPC, the ten JPIs, the EC, as well as a broad spectrum of national and international stakeholders.

Summary conclusions of the High Level Group for Joint Programming (GPC) Meeting on 6 June 2017.

The newsletter features latest news and information on: *) An interview with the new Director RTD B Jean-David MALO on P2Ps *) “One Health” – A European Joint Programme fighting foodborne zoonoses *) Evaluation of Article 185 initiatives *) Conditions and criteria for support to JPIs and ERANETs in the WP 2018-20 *) News about the Annual Joint Programming Conference *) Facts and figures about P2P *) What’s new in ERA-LEARN 2020? (e.g. New functionalities on www.ERA-LEARN.eu, Annual summary report on good practices in the implementation of JPIs) *) Upcoming ERA-LEARN 2020 Events: Implementing ERA-NET Cofund - 22 Sep­tember 2017 in Berlin, Foresight Training III - 26-27 September 2017 in Vienna

This case study showcases how FACCE-JPI assesses impact through its Monitoring & Evaluation activities. Six years after its launch, the ambition is to show evidence for impact created in the course of time. This ambition requires adequate approaches and processes of evaluation. FACCE-JPI developed a stepwise approach. This case study also shows how Monitoring & Evaluation activities also serve as a reflection and learning tool. FACCE-JPI’s approach and process is that it introduces three “Targets”. The FACCE-JPI monitoring and evaluation framework describes the relationship of Targets as follows: the alignment and coordination of national and European programmes (Target 1) is needed to ensure high quality transnational research activities (Target 2). These research activities in turn will contribute to the overall goal of the JPI: […] tackling the societal challenge (Target 3). FACCE-JPI has conceptualised and operationalised Target 1 (Alignment), developed a questionnaire to the Governing Board, and collected monitoring data.

The joint Baltic Sea research and development programme (BONUS), which was launched under the Article 185 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union as a strategic, multi-annual joint research undertaking of eight Baltic Member States. The Programme has created a macroregional collaboration of research and innovation funding institutions that supports sustainable development of the Baltic Sea ecosystem services. Its purpose is to overcome research fragmentation and duplication by integrating national programmes into a single centrally managed programme.

NordForsk is an organisation developed at regional level among the Nordic Countries - Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, and three autonomous areas, Faroe Islands, Greenland and the Åland Islands. Established under the Nordic Council of Ministers – inter-governmental body for cooperation in the Nordic Region – NordForsk provides funding for and facilitates Nordic cooperation on research and research infrastructures through the financing and administration of research programmes. Its mandate is in particular to facilitate, to identify and respond to, common strategic priorities for Nordic research cooperation, and thereby create Nordic added value. The peculiarity of this regional initiative relies on the extended use of the “real common pot funding mechanism” in all its programmes and initiatives.

This document is the Background Document that accompanies the ‘Short Guide on P2P evaluation / impact assessment’ (Deliverable D3.4a). As such it provides additional information on a number of the concepts used in the Guide as well as examples from P2Ps relevant work. Naturally, the Background Document is a living document that can and should be updated in the course of ERA-LEARN 2020 reflecting on the rising needs for evaluation / impact assessment of P2Ps. It is also important to note that the term ‘impact assessment’ in the Guide and this Background Document is seen in the wider sense addressing also evaluation of an intervention’s effectiveness, efficiency, etc. as well as its outputs and outcomes. Thus, the terms ‘evaluation’ and ‘impact assessment’ are used interchangeably.

Evaluation and impact assessment has become an imperative need for all P2Ps. Following a process of consultation with the P2P community, ERA-LEARN 2020 has published a Guide for P2P impact assessment (Deliverable 3.4a) drawing on relevant evaluation theories and good practices. As impact evaluation is a complex and constantly evolving topic, it is strongly advised that this Guide be read in conjunction with Deliverable D3.4b “Background document on P2P evaluation / impact assessment”, which provides additional information on the concepts used in the Guide as well as examples from P2P-relevant work. Naturally, the Background Document is a living document that can and should be updated in the course of ERA-LEARN 2020 reflecting on the evolving needs for evaluation / impact assessment of P2Ps.

Presentation by the European Commission on conditions and criteria for support to JPIs and ERA-NETs in the WP 2018-2020.

A tool for distributing the EC-TOP-UP funding.

Template for an ERA-NET Cofund Consortium Agreement.