1. Aligning of Decision Making - Engaging with Stakeholders
Peter Fletcher
Science and Technology Facilities Council

2. AEG Criteria of Maturity
Cost and financial plan well defined, with adequate cost estimates;
Firm financial commitments for the relevant investments and operations;
Approved statutes and governance structure in place;
Existence of a credible project organisation, with clearly identified responsibilities and reporting lines;
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) established and staff planning outlined, including procurement considerations;
User Strategy well planned;
Risk Analysis included.

3. Implementation Group Report
For most RIs listed on the ESFRI Roadmap, securing the necessary financial investment from MS represents a genuine challenge due in particular to the lack of harmonisation and synchronisation in Europe in the national decision-making, roadmap processes and funding practices.
As seen in the status reports on the thematic domains, many of the ESFRI projects succeed in obtaining substantial individual commitments from MS, but the fact that decision-making and timeframes vary substantially from one country to another complicates – and delays in most cases – the pooling of resources up to a sustainable level.

4. AEG Stakeholder requirements
Identification and subsequent engagement of stakeholders should be done early in the conceptualisation.
The commitments of the institutions behind the scientists who initiate the project are crucial because ultimately research infrastructures should be embedded in institutions. From the start they should be involved in the project development.
Stakeholders from the funding side (governments, research councils, EC, private sector) are obviously important for the funding of the construction and operations.
It is important to engage them early in the project development.

5. Implementation Group Report
General recommendations
Projects should involve all stakeholders from an early stage. Funding organisations particularly need to be involved at an early stage of the project by the project leaders.
MS should examine how to better link ESFRI projects with their national roadmaps and Operational Programmes for Structural Funds.

6. How do we respond? Agencies – can we do better? - National meetings?
Projects – plan ahead – enthusiasm is not enough, you are not alone…
Agencies – can we do better? - National meetings?
Role for Science Europe?

7. Goals for Science Europe
Need for strong voice for science in Europe
Variation across Europe, but also collective interests
Importance of strategic engagement with the European Commission – collaborator and constructive critic
Builds on
European Heads of Research Councils (EuroHORCS)
Policy and foresight functions of the European Science Foundation (ESF)
Policy organisation – no funding schemes
Rationalises and re-focusses, in order to be more efficient with less

8. Science Europe members
Austria FWF
Belgium FWO, FNRS
Bulgaria BAS
Croatia HRZZ
Czech Republic GAČR
Denmark DCSR, DFF/DCIR, DG
Estonia ETAG
Finland AKA
France ANR, CNRS, CEA, I FREMER, INRA, INRIA, INSERM, IRD
Germany DFG, HGF, MPG, WGL
Hungary MTA, OTKA
Iceland Rannís
Ireland HRB, IRC, SF
IItaly CNR, INFN
Latvia LZP
Lithuania LMT
Luxembourg FNR
Netherlands NWO
Norway RCN
Poland NCN
Portugal FCT
Slovakia APVV, SAS
Slovenia ARSS
Spain CSIC
Sweden FAS, FORMAS, VR
Switzerland SNSF
United Kingdom AHRC, BBSRC, EPSRC, ESRC, MRC, NERC, STFC

9. SE RI Working Group Membership: 26 members (16 RFOs - 10 RPOs)
Various individual expertises: RI strategy, Science (management), Facility operation
Various MOs’ roles: Funding capital phase, Funding operations phase, Operating facilities, Research support for users…
Strategic objectives set in SE Roadmap (strategic agenda for the association)
Chair: Peter Fletcher (STFC, UK) – elected during kick-off meeting

10. Specific Objectives
Become the voice of Science Europe Member Organisations concerning Research Infrastructure issues
Review MOs drivers and strategies for RIs’ funding, evaluation and management, and promote alignment;
Investigate new ways to promote integration and innovative RIs funding; 
Follow up on the development of the MERIL database and advise Science Europe’s governance on the project’s possible next phases;
Stimulate the networking in areas/disciplines where no dedicated schemes are implemented;
Advance the development of e-infrastructures in coordination with Science Europe Working Group on Research Data.

11. Task Group on Strategic Frameworks
Roadmap & ToR: “Review MOs drivers and strategies for RIs’ funding, evaluation and management, and promote alignment”
Understand the differences – not wrong, just different
Underlying questions:
How to balance top down / bottom up approaches when developing strategic framework for RIs?
Could good practices be defined/shared for introducing top down guidance/ setting priorities?
How to introduce long term funding stability
How to secure room for new developments
Expected outcomes/impacts:
Improved decision making on RI’s,
more effective spending of budgets

12. Next steps
Science Europe Research Infrastructure Working Group report mid 2014?
Joint workshop with ESFRI?
Keep talking to Stakeholders

14. Peter Fletcher peter. fletcher@stfc. ac. uk Maud Evrard maud
Peter Fletcher Maud Evrard
Questions?