Documents

The European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP) was established in September 2003 by 15 European countries with the aim to develop capacity building for clinical trials and new clinical interventions to address the needs of sub-Saharan Africa in the fields of HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. Created as an Article 169 of the Treaty (since re-numbered as Article 185 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union), the EDCTP aims at improving coordination and integration of research from different European Member States in the field of poverty related diseases. The programme has facilitated alignment and coordination of European national research programmes and activities; has fostered African leadership in clinical research, and has strengthened the ethics and regulatory environment for conducting clinical trials in sub-Saharan Africa.

The BLUEMED initiative, Blue Growth research and Innovation Initiative for the Mediterranean - BLUEMED Initiative, is the result of the efforts of 9 EU member states bordering the Mediterranean sea, to foster a sustainable blue growth in the Mediterranean sea area. Its final goal is to contribute to align or integrate the funding strategies, R&I funds and infrastructures at regional, national and EU level, by avoiding duplication, improving the effectiveness in the use of resources and maximizing the leverage effects. BLUEMED represents a good practice of alignment at strategic level, involving from one side the EU Mediterranean Countries, who committed at political level to adopt common research priorities and strategic agenda, and from the other side, the European Commission DG RTD and MARE, which facilitated and supported the process.

The ERA-NET Plus (European Research Area Network) Infravation is a transnational joint call for research proposals in the field of road infrastructure that relies on a “real common pot” funding mechanism. It brings together 11 National Road Authorities, including from Israel (FP7 Associated country) and the USA, and benefits from co-funding from the European Commission. This ERA-NET’s funding mechanism promotes greater financial alignment by allowing to pool financial resources from participating countries and optimally use the latter to fund selected transnational research projects, irrespective of applicants’ nationalities. It has also enabled participating countries to identify common research priorities and to promote alignment at the operational level through the delegation of funding, coordination and management responsibilities to a single entity.

Building on the Typology of Alignment (Task 4.1), this Task examines in greater depth selected actions and instruments that promote greater alignment amongst EU Member-States’ national research programmes and activities. A set of case studies are selected among existing P2P networks, research alliances and JPIs. These consist in a mix of actions and instruments undertaken at different stages in the research programming cycle and relying on different cooperation modes and actors, hence representing different facets of alignment. The analysis relies on a review of existing literature and targeted interviews with managers and beneficiaries/participants of these alignment modalities. In synthesizing the results of the selected case studies, a comparative analysis will be conducted in view of developing a roadmap/ toolbox for further aligning different P2Ps.

This publication contains nine case studies that examine different approaches and modalities used by EU Member-States (and Horizon2020 Associated Countries) to facilitate the alignment of national research strategies, programmes and other activities in the context of joint programming processes. These case studies have been conducted in the framework of Task 4.2 of the ERA-LEARN2020 Project (2015-18), and build on the “Typology of Alignment” developed under the project’s Task 4.1. The case studies do not constitute in-depth evaluations of ongoing practices. Instead they aim to illustrate how selected approaches have been used to promote alignment at strategic, operational and financial levels, and what the key “lessons learned” are from these experiences. The case studies outline the main benefits and challenges practitioners have faced when putting in place such approaches, and the key factors for their successful implementation. The main target audience for this publication are national research funding and research performing organisations.

The Joint Programme Neurodegenerative Disease Research (JPND) is the largest global research initiative that enables participating countries to collaborate on tackling the challenge of age-related neurodegenerative diseases. JPND was among the first JPIs to establish a monitoring and evaluation framework. In 2016-2017, this framework was revised. This good practice case study focuses on the recalibration of the existing monitoring and evaluation framework and its underlying rationales. The case study highlights main sources and processes needed for performing the framework and highlights key benefits as well as challenges in this regard.

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.