TOPIC BRIEFING PRIOR TO THE REMOTE EVALUATION

Transcription

1 EO-3 TOPIC BRIEFING PRIOR TO THE REMOTE EVALUATION 4 April

2 Purpose To ensure common understanding of the WP's key elements in order to guarantee a single and harmonized approach in the evaluation, including what is addressed under which subcriterion To review the evaluation criteria and provide guidelines for the interpretation 2

3 General Info Neutral Process During the briefing and remote evaluation, all evaluators must remain anonymous in order to avoid any bias o o Experts are invited to ask questions during the briefing session at REA-SPACE-WEB-STREAMING@ec.europa.eu We will try to reply part of the questions orally in the end of the session, and send a list of all the questions and answers to you by as soon as possible An independent observer is attending the topic briefing to monitor the process The topic briefing is recorded and will be available after the session for 1-2 weeks The slides and the FAQs will also be available at the Space 2017 Evaluation website at space-research_en 3

4 Earth observation 4 EO Preparation for a European capacity to monitor CO 2 anthropogenic emissions To bring together the key European stakeholders and competent entities to advance a coordinated preparation of a mature European capacity. Encompasses coordination of ongoing efforts (e.g. H2020, national and ESA studies) Includes identification of research and infrastructural gaps. Action is designed to support the COM process of task force activities to Lay the mature foundation for an independent space borne observation capacity for CO2 Lay the foundation for the operational integration of all European capacities as a subsequent step Reccomended project size Indicative budget Type of action single 3,5 M Coordination and Support Action

5 Meeting users' needs Copernicus space component evolution Scope in DA for preparatory activities Identified users' need CO 2 expert report on need for space-borne CO 2 observation capacity Extended Sentinel life gives scope for Sentinel Evolution European CO 2 emission monitoring capacity ESA programme renewal EOEP-5 (HPCM) CMIN 2016; CMIN 2019 H2020 support to Copernicus evolution Commission prep of next MFF in 2019 Complementary funding tools for short and long term 5 /library/co2_report_22oct2015.pdf

6 Fossil CO 2 Emissions within Copernicus Where do we stand? Member States (Copernicus UF and committee; ESA PB-EO) have been consulted. The CO2 initiative is integrated in the context of the Copernicus Space Component evolution plan (supported by ESA through EOEP-4 & 5 programmes). Users consultation Workshop organized on March 11, Nomination of a CO 2 monitoring task force with two interactive WPs: Task A (co-convened by ESA-EC): Focus on the space component - more specifically a CO2 pre-operational mission Task B (convened by EC with some common membership of Task force A): Address issues related to ground-based infrastructure an end-to end operational emission monitoring system 6

7 Space based CO 2 measurement objectives Proposed Strategy Copernicus with CH4 (and CO/NO2?) 7

8 System Development within Copernicus Towards Implementation Adapted from D. Riley (NASA/JPL) 8

9 Challenge for a European CO2 capacity Achieve a requirement-driven integration of existing remotesensing, in situ and modelling capabilities for an end-to-end system design Optimise the necessary in-situ design in terms of measurements needed, by when and on what scale, to support the satellite retrievals (i.e., the CO 2 column integrated content) as well as the relative contribution from anthropogenic emissions. Identify existing inverse modelling approaches with their respective pros and cons and the steps needed (i.e. studies) towards an operational system (e.g., particular attention to be given to reconciling bias removal- ground-based and satellite retrieval estimates) Dimension the required system to achieve an operational analysis & forecast system Centre for CO 2,also with regard to the computing, big data processing and storage/dissemination infrastructure needs. Define the R&D tasks which need to be followed-up through H2020 in post-2017 calls and/or other suitable funding opportunities. 9

10 10 EO Reccomended project size Indicative budget Type of action Reconcile Top-down and bottom-up estimates Establish a library of simulations for emissions and atmospheric transport Quantify uncertainty trade-offs in fossil fuel emissions Establish a basis for attributing CO2 emissions from insitu measurements single 3,5 M Coordination and Support Action

11 Coordination and support actions (CSA) Description: Actions consisting primarily of accompanying measures such as standardisation, dissemination, awareness-raising and communication, networking, coordination or support services, policy dialogues and mutual learning exercises and studies, including design studies for new infrastructure and may also include complementary activities of strategic planning, networking and coordination between programmes in different countries. Funding rate: 100% 11

12 CSA Coordination & support actions Different: 1.3. Quality of the proposed coordination and/or support measures Different: No reference to other impacts * Experts will also be asked to assess the operational capacity of applicants to carry out the proposed work 12

13 Link between WP topics, proposal text and evaluation template Proposal Part B Evaluation template WP Topics Specific challenge Scope Expected Impact 1. Excellence 1.1 Objectives 1.2 Relation to the work programme 1.3 Concept and methodology, quality of of the coordination & support measures 2. Impact 2.1 Expected impacts 2.2 Measures to maximise impact a) Dissemination and exploitation of results b) Communication activities 3. Implementation 3.1 Work plan: Work package & deliverables 3.2 Management structure and procedures 3.3 Consortium as a whole 3.4 Resources to be committed 4. Members of the consortium 4.1. Participants (applicants) 4.2. Third parties involved in the project (including use of third party resources) 5. Ethics and Security 13

14 1. EXCELLENCE - CSA PART B - 1. Excellence 1.1 Objectives clear, measurable, realistic and achievable within project duration 1.2 Relation to the work programme explain how your proposal addresses the specific challenge and scope of the work programme topic 1.3 Concept and methodology, quality of the coordination and support measures (a)concept Describe and explain the overall concept + main ideas, models or assumptions involved. Links with other projects/activities (a)methodology Describe and explain the overall methodology The information can also be found elsewhere in the proposal! Crt Clarity and pertinence of the objectives Crt Soundness of the concept, and credibility of the proposed methodology Crt Quality of the proposed coordination and/or support measures

15 Work programme vs Excellence Criterion in EO-3 15

16 2. IMPACT - CSA PART B - 2. Impact 2.1 Expected impacts each of the expected impacts mentioned under the relevant topic Describe any barriers/obstacles, and any framework conditions Crt The extent to which the outputs would contribute to the expected impacts listed in the work programme under the relevant topic 2.2 Measures to maximise impact a) Dissemination and exploitation of results draft plan for the dissemination and exploitation of the project's results Business plan where relevant Outline the strategy for knowledge management and protection (incl IPR) Open Research Data -> information on how the participants will manage the research data generated and/or collected during the Project a) Communication activities promoting the project and its findings -> tailored to different target audiences, including groups beyond the project's own community Crt Quality of proposed measures to exploit and disseminate project results (including IPR, manage research data where relevant) communicate the project activities to different target audiences Open Access to scientific publications or Open access to research data should not be taken into consideration in the evaluation.

17 Work programme vs Impact Criterion in EO-3 17

18 3. IMPLEMENTATION CSA PART B 3. IMPLEMENTATION 3.1 Work plan Work packages, deliverables overall structure of the work plan timing of the different work packages Gantt chart detailed work description (WP, deliverables, etc..) Pert chart or similar (inter-relation of the WPs) 3.2 Management structure, milestones and procedures organisational structure and the decision-making mechanisms + why they are appropriate to the complexity and scale of the project. where relevant, innovation management Describe any critical risks, relating to project implementation + mitigation measures 3.3 Consortium as a whole Describe the consortium Describe the contribution of each partner If a participant requesting EU funding is based in a country or is an international organisation that is not automatically eligible for funding, explain why the participation of the entity in question is essential to carrying out the project 3.4 Resources to be committed table showing number of person/months required table showing other direct costs for participants where those costs exceed 15% of the personnel costs Crt 3.1 Quality and effectiveness of the work plan, including extent to which resources assigned in work packages are in line with objectives/ deliverables Crt Appropriateness of management structures and procedures, including risk and innovation management* Risk management: internal and external risks and measures to manage them Crt Complementarity of the participants which the consortium as a whole brings together expertise Are there empty shells in the consortium? Crt Appropriateness of allocation of tasks, ensuring that all participants have a valid role and adequate resources in the project to fulfil that role Are high "Other Direct Costs" justified? Are subcontracts justified? *see slide on innovation 18

19 Work programme vs Implementation Criterion in EO-3 19

20 Process Reminders Evaluators: It is important to accept the proposals assigned in SEP immediately (deadline by 5/04/2017) o In case of non-acceptance provide a justification (e.g. CoI) Complete the Remote Evaluation on time, 21/04/2017 o Necessary to allow the rapporteur to prepare a draft consensus report (CR) prior to the consensus meeting The draft CR will be available in the system a few days before the consensus meeting o It is encouraged to read the draft CR prior to the meeting to prepare for the consensus discussion 20

21 Thank you In case of questions or problems during the individual evaluation, do not hesitate to contact your topic coordinator For period : (for technical issues: IT Helpdesk) 21