cc: martin.miles@geol.uib.no, Beatriz Balino date: Thu Jun 27 11:36:16 2002 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: 6th framework : some additional information to: Chappellaz Jerome , Eystein Jansen , Laurent Labeyrie , Keith Alverson , Rick Battarbee , didier.paillard@lsce.cnrs-gif.fr, Dominique Raynaud , jean jouzel , Chappellaz Jerome , Gerald Ganssen , Jean Marc Barnola , Ralph Schneider , Wolff Eric , "jkipfstuhl@awi-bremerhaven.de" , "hoerter@awi-bremerhaven.de" , "j.oerlemans@fys.ruu.nl" , "winther@npolar.no" , "margareta.hansson@natgeo.su.se" , "jouzel@lsce.saclay.cea.fr" , "hwjacobi@awi-bremerhaven.de" , "hufischer@awi-bremerhaven.de" , "jerome@glaciog.ujf-grenoble.fr" , "domraynaud@glaciog.ujf-grenoble.fr" , "delmas@glaciog.ujf-grenoble.fr" , "jps@gfy.ku.dk" , "stauffer@climate.unibe.ch" , "ewwo@bas.ac.uk" , heinz miller , rlorrain@ulb.ac.be, jtison@ulb.ac.be, hdecleir , frank pattyn , "fichefet@astr.ucl.ac.be" , "m.king@kcl.ac.uk" , "armin.hansel@uibk.ac.at" , "harry108@mail.lasvegas.net" , "frederique.remy@cnes.fr" , "frode.stordal@nilu.no" , "valter.maggi@unimib.it" , "frezotti@casaccia.enea.it" , "barbante@unive.it" , "stenni@univ.trieste.it" , "john.moore@urova.fi" , "lina@misu.su.se" , "fily@glaciog.ujf-grenoble.fr" , "dietmat.wagenbach@iup.uni-heidelberg.de" , "m.r.vandenbroeke@phys.uu.nl" , "dhandorf@awi-potsdam.de" , "thor@os.is" , mario zucchelli , gerard jugie , Carlo Alberto Ricci Dear Jerome thanks for taking the trouble to share this information and your thoughts with us. I agree that we should all cross post any new information and specific feedback we receive from our national representatives or contacts. It has always been clear that the competition for such NoE and IPs was destined to be very fierce. The points you make about social relevance (which translates into political pressure) of the proposals is crucial and I agree that we may need to reconsider this aspect of how we present our project(s) very carefully. best wishes Keith At 12:28 PM 6/27/02 +0100, Chappellaz Jerome wrote: Dear Colleagues and friends, Yesterday I attended a meeting in Nancy organized by the french ministry of research about the 6th framework and the thematic 1.6.3 "Global change and ecosystems". Mr Pierre Valette, deputy director of the theme "environment" at the Research Division of the European Commission, was invited and gave some interesting thoughts that I forward here. Most probably other european nations have or will organize similar sessions and it will be important that we cross these information in order to build the most competitive projects next fall. The budget for the action 1.6 is 2.12 GEuros, and 700 MEuros are dedicated to 1.6.3. The sub-topic got wider than was the case for the 5th framework, and for instance the development of tools for sustainable agriculture and forestry management is now part of 1.6.3. Which means that we are more fighting for less... Among the 16,000 EoI received by Brussels, about 2000 concern our thematic 1.6.3. They have read about 400 of them at this point. There is an equal distribution of EoI between integrated projects and networks of excellence. Often the size of the EoI is too small compared to Brussels' expectation and the effort of integration is not enough. Valette mentioned that socio-economical aspects of global change were not enough pointed out in the project objectives and means. This is important for us. Our polar and paleo projects cover mostly fundamental science with very limited interactions with socio-economy. There is a risk that we get bad evaluation if we don't argue strongly why such research cannot be articulated with parallel socio-economical research. We should keep in mind that the project evaluations will be conducted by panels of experts in fundamental sciences but also in sociology and economy. Valette said that the projects should insist on the benefit to integrate our laboratories, leading to better and more competitive research than by simple juxtaposition of our forces. The notion of sustainability is much important for Brussels. When we study global change, we should bear in mind the search for threshold effects, accompagnied by measurable criteria, allowing policy-makers to take decision with a cost/benefit approach. 15% of the 6th framework budget is supposed to return to small companies. We are encouraged to associate whenever possible such companies in our projects. The projects should include a core group of participants, and associated partners. Brussels will not select participants for us, we must do it. Criteria which can apply for the selection are (1) the number of major publications within the thematic made by the partner, (2) the number of european contracts within the past 4 or 5 years which associated or were coordinated by this partner, (3) the number of PhD theses defended by the partner within the thematic over the past 4-5 years. Official support (label) from international programmes regarding a NoE or an IP will be a bonus. Overall, we should expect about 10 IP and 10 NoE funded by Brussels for the thematic 1.6.3 after the first call for proposals. This means that the selection will be very high. We have strong competitors. Yesterday was presented for instance a huge NoE (REXMARECO) focussing on marine ecosystems and resources, with a strong link between fundamental research and socio-economy, including 65 european agencies, more than 100 laboratories and 500 researchers. Another on African monsoon, with about the same characteristics. The representatives of the french ministry of research plan to put on the web all EoI that they have heard about, with the objective to favor project integrations. We should already start to think inside our community about the possible integrations between the different EoI that we have launched so far. This is all for now. Looking forward to reading other comments and information coming from other european nations. All the best, Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784