HERITAGE PLUS Project Mid-Term Management Board Meeting...

HERITAGE PLUS Project

Mid-Term Management Board Meeting

Bruxelles, 17 March 2016

WP3 : IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JOINT CALL

Cristina Sabbioni

National Research Council (CNR)

HERITAGE PLUS Coordination

HERITAGE PLUS : WORKPACKAGES

HERITAGE PLUS – Mid Term MeetingBruxelles, 17 March 2016

HERITAGE PLUS : TIMETABLE

Sem1 Sem2 Sem1 Sem2 Sem1 Sem2 Sem1 Sem2 Sem1 Sem2

WP1 Coordination and Management

WP2 Preparation of the Joint Call

WP3 Implementation of the Joint Call

WP4 Project Monitoring and Impact Assessment

PHASE 1: Launching and Managing the Joint Call

PHASE 2: Topping up of the Joint Call Budget and

implementation of selected Projects

Year 5Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4


WP3 : OBJECTIVES

Manage the Joint Call after opening the Call

according to the agreed procedures established in

WP2.

Make a decision by Partners on the financing of a

ranked list of trans-national project proposals

Gain signatures for research contracts from the

participating funding Partners.


WP3 : TASKS AND LEADERS

WP3 LEADER P1 MIBACT, Italy

Task 3.1. First Step - Pre-ProposalsTask Leader P2 – MIUR, Italy

Task 3.2. Second Step - Full ProposalsTask Leader P1 – MIBACT, Italy

Task 3.3. Final decisions for projects fundingTask Leader P13 - NWO, The Netherlands

All Partners:

Contribution to HERITAGE PLUS call implementation


JPICH HERITAGE PLUS CALL

• Participant Countries: 15 Countries (*)

» 18 Funding Organizations

• Call Process : Two steps

• Call Budget : 6.2 M€ (National Funding)

• EC Contribution: 3.1 M€ (max HERITAGE PLUS Project)

• Total Budget : 9.3 M€ (max Total Budget)

• Funding Schema : Virtual common pot

• Call Launch: 3 March 2014

• Call Deadline Pre-Prop 28 April 2014

(*) Italy, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Israel, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, The Netherlands, United Kingdom


HERITAGE PLUS CALL: RESEARCH TOPICS

1. Safeguarding tangible cultural heritage and its

associated intangible expressions

2. Sustainable strategies for protecting and

managing cultural heritage

3. Use and re-use of all kinds of cultural heritage


Deadline for pre-proposal submission

• 28 April 2014

National eligibility

evaluation • 30 April – 26 May

Evaluation of pre-proposals by

Scientific Committee

• 28 May – 30 June

ROAD MAP FOR EVALUATION PRE-PROPOSALS/1


Consensus evaluation meeting

Management Group meeting

Invitation for full proposals

submission

• 5 August 2014

Deadline for submission

full proposals

• 22 October 2014

• Sent Doc. Eval. to MG on 11 July

• 17-18 July 2014

• 7-8 July 2014

ROAD MAP FOR EVALUATION PRE-PROPOSALS/2


Remote evaluation by independent

international peer reviewer experts

• 3 November 2014 – 10 February 2015

International peer review Panel

meeting

• 19-20 February 2015

Management Group meeting for funding decision

• 18 - 19 March 2015

ROAD MAP FOR EVALUATION FULL PROPOSALS/3




• 3 November 2014 - 10 February 2015


meeting

• 19-20 February 2015


• 18 - 19 March 2015

ROAD MAP FOR EVALUATION (2)ROAD MAP FOR EVALUATION FULL PROPOSALS/4




• 3 November 2014 - 10 February 2015


meeting

• 19-20 February 2015


• 18 - 19 March 2015

ROAD MAP FOR EVALUATION FULL PROPOSALS/5


National funding bodies to complete administrative

procedures related to successful proposals

• March – April 2015

Projects start

• April – Sept. 2015

ROAD MAP FOR FULL PROPOSALS FUNDING/6


PRE-PROPOSAL EVALUATION

Eligible pre-proposals followed the common scientific peer reviewevaluation by the Scientific Committee, supplemented, if necessary,by other experts from the list of independent international expertsproposed by HERITAGE PLUS Beneficiaries.

The evaluation criteria included: i) quality of the proposed research;ii) compatibility with the scope of the Call; iii) clarity of projectaims, work programme, outcomes; iv) added value throughtransnational cooperation.

FOLLOWING THE GUIDELINE FOR APPLICANTS


THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE MEMBERS AVAILABLE TO

EVALUATE A MAXIMUM OF 30 PRE-PROPOSALS AND TO

PARTICIPATE AT THE CONSENSUS MEETING ON THE 7-8 JULY

+ EXPERTS FROM:

the list of independent international experts proposed by HERITAGE PLUS Beneficiaries

TOTAL PEER EXPERTS INVOLVED IN THE EVALUATION

PROCESS : 23 (5 SC MEMBERS AND 18 ADDITIONAL EXPERTS)

PRE-PROPOSAL EVALUATION PANEL COMPOSITION


To support the remote evaluation process, the

following documents were sent:

Guidelines for applicants

Guidelines for evaluation

Evaluation reporting form (including check of

conflict of interest)

Declaration of Confidentially

PEER REVIEW EVALUATION PROCESS :SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS


First Step - Pre-Proposal : PHASE 2

Each Pre-proposal was sent to two reviewers for remote evaluation.

Each evaluators received a maximum of 30 Pre-proposals

Evaluators were asked to complete the pre-proposal evaluations bythe 4th of July

The best possible balance about geographical distribution, topicsand gender issues was applied compatible with SC Members andExperts availability.


First Step - Pre-Proposal : PHASE 3

Task 3.1 Leader prepared the documents and organised the meeting ofthe HERITAGE Plus Management Group to agree on the list of proposalsranked based on the evaluation performed by the Scientific Committee,supplemented by other experts, that were admitted to the Second Step.

The total requested budgets of the proposals admitted into Step 2 didnot exceed 3 times the total budgets committed by the FundingPartners.

The results of the First Step have been communicated to the proposalsapplicants.

FOLLOWING THE GUIDELINE FOR APPLICANTS


First Step - Pre-Proposal evaluation results

Submitted pre-proposals followed the national eligibility

check by the funding Partners based on national funding

rules.

Number of submitted pre-proposals 352

Number of eligible pre-proposals 252

Number of go proposals to the Second Step 61


Task 3.2 : Step - Full-Proposal

Number of proposals pass to Second Step 61

Number of submitted full proposals 58

Number of full proposals submittedfor remote evaluation (after 54second national eligibility step)


Task 3.2 : Second Step - Full Proposals

Independent experts for remote evaluation

The Task 3.2 Leader managed the applications received throughthe JHEP Tool and maintained the applicant database.

The existing JHEP database of independent international expertswas updated. All the Funding Partners and JPI Participants wereinvolved in searching for additional independent internationalexperts according to the needs of the Full Proposals.

Funding Partners matched experts’ profile with the need ofproposal evaluation in order to establish an appropriateinternational peer review panel: 1 October -1 November 2014


• Heritage Plus Participants : Groups of 3 Countries

• Each Group: 10 Proposals (access to full proposals)

• Each Country : 3 evaluators for each proposal

• List of evaluators for the 61 proposals passed to Step 2

• WP3 Task Leaders (MIBACT, MIUR and NWO) selected 3

evaluators per proposal (+ reserve list)

• Requested evaluators’ availability : 3rd of November


Independent expert for remote evaluation


After the independent experts have carried out the individual

remote evaluation of the Proposals, these 162 remote

evaluations + 54 proposals have been sent to the International

Peer Review Panel (IPRP), in the meantime formed.

Each member of the IPRP also received before the meeting:

• 10 or 11 full proposals to evaluate as first or secondrapporteur,

• The Heritage Plus IPRP Guidelines to support them in theevaluation activities and to explain the goal and theoutcome of the meeting

• HERITAGE PLUS Code of Conduct and Conflict of Interest

• The template for Evaluation Summary Report


International Peer Review Panel documents


Task 3.2 : Second Step - Full Proposals -

Independent Peer Review Panel members

Ghislaine Azemard: University (UP8), Paris, France Mauro Bacci: National Research Council, Italy Koos Bosma: VU University Amsterdam, Netherlands Mireille Grubert : Ecole de Chaillot (National School of Architecture), France Lorna Hughes: University of Wales, UK Callum Lee: BOP Consulting, London, UK Jamie Tratalos: University College Dublin, IE Przemyslaw Urbanczyk: (Chair) - CardinalWyszyński University and Polish Academy of Sciences, Poland Sara Van Rompaey: E.ARChitects Energy Efficient Architecture Renovation Conservation, Merelbeke, Belgium Gert Jan van Wijngaarden: University of Amsterdam, Netherlands External observer: Sean Ryder: Chair of English School of Humanities National, University of Ireland, Ireland.



The international peer review panel, during the meeting agreed upon a

final consensus report and scored each proposal, following which the

ranking list was determined.

Following EC rules the outcome of the independent international peer

review was a report recording, principally:

i) An Evaluation Summary Report (ESR);

ii) A list of proposals passing all thresholds, along with a final scorefor each proposal passing the thresholds and the panelrecommendations for priority order.

iii) A list of evaluated proposals having failed one or more thresholds;

iv) A list of any proposals having been found ineligible during theevaluation by experts;

v) A summary of any deliberations of the panel.



International Peer Review Panel Meeting activities

Out of the 54 full proposals

- 4 proposals had a score of 14












The nine projects with the lowest score (up to score 8) all failedto pass at least one threshold. In addition two of the projectswith a score of 9 did fail the threshold on one of the threeevaluation criteria.

The remaining 43 proposals were considered “recommended for funding” by the Panel. Subsequently,

the Panel continued discussing the ranking of these proposals.

NOT RECCOMENDED FOR FUNDING




The preliminary ranking was further refined by discussing the projects with significant scoring discrepancies among the remote external reviewers.

A new ranked list was produced based on the two IPRP reviewers’ agreed scores on the three evaluation criteria for each proposal.

The Chair read through the entire list of proposals and invited IPRP members to express any further views or questions on each proposal.

Some scoring and ranking adjustments were made by the Panel based onfurther discussion among some reviewers and a prioritisation of the scores in the“scientific quality” criteria.

The Panel spent some time considering the ranking of especially

the projects on rank 12-14 as it seemed likely that these were most

critical considering the funding available.

Finally, the Review Panel approved the ranking list of the 43 project

proposals recommended for funding.HERITAGE PLUS – Mid Term Meeting




Afterwards the IPRP members worked on the Evaluation Summary Reports.For these the first and the second rapporteur of each project were invitedto work together in order to compile a common Evaluation SummaryReport, that included a specific score for every selection criterion, a finaltotal score and well defined and focused comments about the mostimportant details of all the evaluated full proposals.

The Evaluation Summary Reports would be sent to the Project Leader ofeach proposal in order to communicate to him/her the result of theselection process and to explain the reasons of the final assessment.

Any budget recommendation were specified inside the Evaluation SummaryReports




At the end of the meeting all the Evaluation Summary Reports were written andsigned by the first and the second rapporteur.

In addition the list of the proposals passing the threshold ranked in order of priorityand the list of the proposals not passing the threshold were both signed by theChairman and by two experts.

IPRP final suggestions (1):

They stressed to the opportunity to have in the future more time for evaluating thefull proposals.

They also underlined that to have had more time it would allow to read and analysenot only the proposals specifically assigned as rapporteurs, but all the projectsselected for the final step in order to have a general picture of the quality of theproposals before to proceed with their specific evaluations.


Task 3.2 : Second Step - Full Proposals (3)

The panel report (minute) was signed by at least three panelexperts, including the rapporteur and the Chairperson.

The final ranking list was presented to the Management Group.However the number of projects that received funding depended onthe amount of budget made available by each Participant and thecontribution provided by the EC.


Task 3.3 : Final decisions for projects funding

This task started with the information emerging from the internationalpeer review panel meeting.

A meeting of the HERITAGE PLUS Management Group was organised toagree on the project funding decisions together with EC. The fundingdecision followed the joint selection and ranking list and will bedetermined by the respective budgets reserved by the Funding Partnersand the European Commission top-up dependent on it.

The final results was communicated to the Project Leaders.

Negotiation took place and project contracts were e prepared by all thefunding Partners concerned.


PROJECTS FUNDED


Project

Rank Total

1 HIMANIS 390.869

2 GASTROCERT 571.490

3 EnDOW 530.279

4 EUWATHER 669.349

5 REFIT 371.738

6 CMOP 717.742

7 CHIME_MUSICA 600.393

8 CHT2 596.974

9 CLIMA 631.740

10 PROTHEGO 619.673

11 EURO-MAGIC 629.931

12 HEAT 345.728

13 HERITAMUS 243.079

14 CHANGES 653.873

15 HEURIGHT14 430.569

16 PICH 664.700

Total 8.668.128

Pre-Proposals Participations and coordinators


PP Coordinators and participations

Full Proposals Participations and coordinators


Participations and coordinators

Pre – Proposals


Participations and coordinators

Full Proposals


Cost and funding requested

Full Proposals


Number of selected topics

Topic 1 Safeguarding tangible cultural heritage and its associated intangible expressions

Topic 2 Sustainable strategies for protecting and managing cultural heritageTopic 3 Use and re-use of all kinds of cultural heritage

PP FPno choices 11 -1 choice 98 10 2 choices 128 22 3 choices 115 22


Topics selected as first choice

Topic 1 Safeguarding tangible cultural heritage and its associated intangible expressions

Topic 2 Sustainable strategies for protecting and managing cultural heritageTopic 3 Use and re-use of all kinds of cultural heritage


Participants typology in FP


Full Proposal Remote Evaluation


WP3 : DELIVERABLES

D 3.1. Report on the results of the first Step of the Call

(Month 11 : Month 24)

D 3.2. Report on the results of the second Step of the

Call and scored ranking list of Full Proposals (Month

18 : Month 24)

D 3.3. Joint selection list of trans-national projects,

formal financial commitments from beneficiaries and

request for topping-up (Month 20: Month 21)


WP3 : MILESTONES

M 3.1 Joint invitation list for Step 2 (Month 11)

M 3.2. Panel meeting resulting in the ranking list (Month 17)

M 3.3. Trans-national projects signatures ready (Month 20)


WP3 : TIMESCALE


49HERITAGE PLUS – Mid Term Meeting


HERITAGE PLUS Project Mid-Term Management Board Meeting...

Documents

Transcript of HERITAGE PLUS Project Mid-Term Management Board Meeting...