| P a g e

Sarah K.C. Sloan SLOAN CONSULTS | OTTAWA, ON

International Models and Best Practices for Research Networks DELIVERABLE 4 FOR ENVIRONMENT CANADA: FINAL REPORT

MARCH 31, 2015

ATTN:

Amanda Barry, Senior Advisor, Science and Technology Branch

Environment Canada

200 Sacré Coeur Blvd., 11th floor

Gatineau, QC K1A 0H3

amanda.barry@ec.gc.ca

819-938-3476

i | P a g e

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 1

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 4

1.1 Background...................................................................................................................................... 4

1.2 Scope and Objectives ........................................................................................................................ 6

2. Methodology ................................................................................................................................................. 8

3. Case Studies ................................................................................................................................................ 12

3.1. Antarctic Climate and Ecosystem Cooperative Research Centre (ACE CRC) .......................................... 19

3.2. Arctic Oil Spill Response Technology Joint Industry Programme (JIP) .................................................. 22

3.3. Baltic Systems Tools and Ecological-economic evaluation – a research network (BalticSTERN) ............. 24

3.4. Centre of Documentation, Research and Experimentation on Accidental Water Pollution (Cedre) ........ 27

3.5. Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) ................................................... 30

3.6. Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative (GoMRI) ...................................................................................... 34

3.7. Helmholtz Association’s Earth and Environment Research Field ......................................................... 38

3.8. Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee (IARPC) Collaborations ............................................... 42

3.9. The Joint Programming Initiative on Agriculture, Food Security and Climate Change (FACCE-JPI) .......... 44

3.10. The National Centre for Ocean Forecasting (NCOF) ........................................................................... 47

4. Comparative Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 50

4.1 Trends ................................................................................................................................................. 50

4.1.1 ICT as a tool to facilitate coordination and collaboration .......................................................................... 50

4.1.2 Public access to research outputs .............................................................................................................. 51

4.1.3 Increased external communication efforts and methods .......................................................................... 52

4.1.4 Collection of key metrics of activities and outcomes ................................................................................ 53

4.2 Strengths and Weaknesses .................................................................................................................... 55

4.2.1 Strengths .................................................................................................................................................... 55

4.2.2 Weakness ................................................................................................................................................... 57

4.3 Best Practices ....................................................................................................................................... 59

4.3.1 Setting Research Priorities ......................................................................................................................... 59

4.3.2 Stakeholder Engagement - Collaboration .................................................................................................. 61

4.3.3 Accelerating the Pace of Research ............................................................................................................. 64

5. Options and Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 67

ii | P a g e

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AIBS American Institute of Biological Sciences

API American Petroleum Institute

ACE CRC Antarctic Climate and Ecosystem Cooperative Research Centre

BalticSTERN Baltic Systems Tools and Ecological-economic evaluation – a Research

Network

BP British Petroleum

CEFAS Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science

CPOM Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling

Cedre Centre of Documentation, Research and Experimentation on Accidental Water

Pollution

CAMS Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences

CENRS Committee on Environment, Natural Resources and Sustainability

CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization

FIO First Institute of Oceanography

GoMRI Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative

HSE Health, Safety and Environment

ISPC Independent Science and Partnership Council

ICT Information and communications technology

IARPC Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee Collaborations

ILTS Institute of Low Temperature Science

IPIECA The International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association

FACCE-JPI Joint Programming Initiative on Agriculture, Food Security and Climate Change

LEGOS Laboratoire d’Etudes en Geophysique et Oceanographie Spatiales

MACSUR Modelling European Agriculture with Climate Change for Food Security

NIPR National Institute of Polar Research

NSF National Science Foundation

NSTC National Science and Technology Committee

NERC Natural Environment Research Council

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

R&D Research and Development

SRA Strategic Research Agenda

SEPA Swedish Environmental Protection Agency

SwAM Swedish Agency for Marine and Water

VUB Vrije Universiteit Brussel

iii | P a g e

GLOSSARY OF FIGURES

Figure 1 – International Research Networks Scope ………………………………………………………………………. 6

Figure 2 – International Research Networks & Organizational Objectives ……………………………………….7

Figure 3 – Jurisdictions of the International Research Networks …………………………………………………….8

Figure 4 – Lines of Evidence …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..9

Figure 5 – Interviews with Research Network Leaders ………………………………………………………………….10

Figure 6 – Interviews with Canadian Science Policy Experts ………………………………………………………….11

Figure 7 – An Overview of the Research Networks ……………………………………………………………………….13

Figure 8 – Helmholtz Association Resources from 2005 to 2013 ……………………………………………………14

Figure 9 – CGIAR Fund Inflows, Disbursements and Balance, 2013 ($ million) ……………………………..16

Figure 10 - Governance and Management Structure of ACE CRC …………………………………………………20

Figure 11 – New Structure in 2014 ………………………………………………………………………………………………29

Figure 12 – GoMRI Organization Chart …………………………………………………………………………………………36

Figure 13 – Helmholtz Association’s Governance Structure ………………………………………………………….40

Figure 14 – Helmholtz Centers ……………………………………………………………………………………………….…...41

Figure 15 – FACCE-JPI Permanent Governance Structure ………………………………………………………..…...46

Figure 16 – A Visualization of Federal Arctic Research Coordination ……………………………………..……..62

Figure 17 – Helmholtz International Cooperation …………………………………………………………………..……64

Figure 18 – The Global Reach of ACE CRC Partnerships ……………………………………………………………..…66

1 | P a g e

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Environment Canada’s Science and Technology Policy Division commissioned this research study to

identify good research network models and best practices that could inform the design of a pan-

Canadian Network of Expertise for Oil Spill Research. The research study was conducted by SLOAN

Consults through a series of ten case studies of international research networks and includes a

comparative analysis featuring identified trends, strengths and weaknesses, and best practices. The

best practices section includes how to set research priorities, facilitate stakeholder engagement,

and how to accelerate the pace of research. The research study methodology included a selection

process to identify research networks of interest in accordance with the defined project scope. The

methodology also relied on the use of multiple lines of evidence including online research (such as

the research network websites, annual reports, brochures, legal documents, workshop summaries

and more) and interviews with two target groups. Interviews were conducted with both the head

of the selected research networks, and Canadian science policy experts.

A number of trends emerged as a result of an extensive review of online sources, coupled with

interviews conducted with key individuals from each research network. For one, there was a trend

to employ various information and communications technology (ICT) tools to facilitate coordination

and collaboration, such as the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee (IARPC)

Collaboration’s development and use of an online platform to update the online community on

research activities, to find individuals and teams, to look for upcoming events or find meeting notes

and presentations from previous events, and to search for reports. There was also a significant

trend for open access to research outcomes whereby publications and/or data portals were

available online. Related to this, the publications were not only passively made available through

the website but furthermore, were translated and/or synthesized for a variety of audiences such as

decision-makers or policy officers and actively distributed at workshops, briefings, roundtables, and

various other formats. In addition, some research networks are using film, including the Gulf of

Mexico Research Initiative’s (GoMRI) documentary to tell a compelling narrative about the research

activities and results. Lastly, the majority of research networks interviewed collected metrics of

research activities and outcomes, for example, the number of peer-reviewed scientific papers. In

some cases, metrics were collected as a requirement of funding (e.g. Antarctic Climate and

Ecosystem Cooperative Research Centre (ACE CRC)), or in other cases, as an internal tool for

management teams (e.g. GoMRI).

The strengths and weaknesses of the selected international research networks emerged as a result

of the comparative analysis. Strengths of the research networks included the ability to find the

‘right’ people to lead either the network itself or the research projects, and/or to forge relationships

between various stakeholders. Another strength identified was clear and strong leadership to

ensure coordination and alignment of stakeholders. In addition, the multidisciplinary focus of the

research networks is a strength and in many cases deemed necessary to address the complex and

large-scale research priorities. The flexibility of the research networks is also a strength, giving the

2 | P a g e

networks the ability to respond to changing priorities, and/or research advances. Related to this, a

number of research networks went through an evaluation process and as a result, strategic research

agendas were revised, and/or on a larger scale, the entire research network model was reformed.

Identified weaknesses included a lack or an uncertainty of funding which ultimately negatively

impacted the research network image (the National Centre for Ocean Forecasting - NCOF), or

presented a significant challenge for the Secretariat to source funds to support the research efforts

(BalticSTERN). Other weaknesses include governance challenges such as weak linkages between the

Governing Board and Executive Committee resulting in a lack of strategic direction, and an

oversized Governing Board that led to delays in decision-making. Lastly, some research networks

had challenges establishing links with industry partners. Reasons for this include significant

differences in the duration of projects which can be multi-decade projects for researchers versus 3

to 6 month long projects for industry, and a lack of mechanism to collaborate with industry.

The best practices gleaned on how to set research priorities include mapping activities of current

research and identifying research gaps, and emerging topics for research. These mapping exercises

were a key component that facilitated the development of the research priorities. Mapping

exercises were not necessarily exhaustive lists of current research in a particular field, but could be

an organized plan around collaborative opportunities. For some research networks, the process of

establishing research priorities featured both a top-down and bottom-up approach. For example,

the government departments or agencies (or through a government strategy document) develop

high level strategic guidelines (top-down) and the researchers would develop research plans in the

form of proposals on how best to address these high level priorities. In addition, once research

priorities were established, the importance of developing an implementation plan was highlighted

and emphasized by a number of interviewees. As a component of this, one research network,

Helmholtz Association created a research infrastructure roadmap to outline the various research

infrastructures required to advance the planned research portfolio. Lastly, once an initial draft of

the research priorities and/or implementation plans were developed, some research networks

circulated the drafts to external stakeholders for feedback and comments.

Best practices on stakeholder engagement and collaboration include the above mentioned online

platform. Interestingly, the IARPC Collaborations encouraged collaboration but used a ‘hands-off’

approach whereby research team leaders were responsible for identifying and collaborating with

researchers and various stakeholders to achieve their respective milestones. BalticSTERN deployed

surveys to the general public to determine attitudes regarding the environmental situation and use

of the sea. Another best practice to encourage stakeholder engagement includes giving

international researchers access to Helmholtz Association’s large-scale research facilities. In

exchange, generally these international researchers also offer Helmholtz researchers access to their

facilities. The Joint Programming Initiative on Agriculture, Food Security and Climate Change’s

(FACCE-JPI) governance structure features a Stakeholder Advisory Board comprised of 22 member

organizations including farming organizations, industry participants, and others. The Stakeholder

Advisory Board is regularly consulted on FACCE-JPI activities. Lastly, the ACE CRC partnership model

facilitates collaboration on an international basis at a project level whereby a research area of

3 | P a g e

mutual interest is identified, the scope of work is defined and a formal commitment of resources is

established.

Finally, there were three main mechanisms identified to accelerate the pace of research:

partnership where ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts,’ leveraging investment, and

recruiting new expertise. First, partnerships allowed the research network members to tackle

questions that no member would be able to accomplish on an individual basis. Both NCOF and the

Centre of Documentation, Research and Experimentation on Accidental Water Pollution (Cedre)

established or leveraged partnerships to access funding through collaborative bids that may not

have been successful were it not for the involvement of a consortium. Second, the ability to

leverage investments included not only financial contributions but also additional resources such

as staff time, and access to vessels. Third, through partnership and collaboration access to new

expertise also accelerated the pace of research. Moreover, GoMRI Chairman suggested that

interaction and access to experts resulted in a new level of self-assurance and improved quality of

science from the key investigators.

The report concludes with a menu of options to support the design and creation of the pan-

Canadian Network of Expertise on Oil Spill Research. The topic of options presented include funding

models, governance structures, mechanisms to establish research priorities and to facilitate

collaboration, and other observations for consideration.

4 | P a g e

1. INTRODUCTION

As part of Canada’s World Class Tanker Safety System, Environment Canada is seeking to develop a

proposal for a pan-Canadian Network of Expertise on Oil Spill Research. The main objective of the

network would be to support more coordinated research in this field across government, industry,

and academia that would also help leverage resources to accelerate the pace of research targeted

to specific users. It may also act as a resource for scientific advice in order to help improve Canada’s

overall scientific capacity to support environmental emergency response. Note that an operational

network of expertise may not have a mandate to fund research.

This Report identifies successful research network models and best practices from outside Canada

that could inform the design of a proposed pan-Canadian Network of Expertise for Oil Spill Research.

This introductory section provides a background for the project as well as project scope and

objectives. Section 2 provides an overview of the methodology, including the selection process, and

the use of multiple lines of evidence. Section 3 includes case studies summarizing detailed

information on the design of each research network including the mission, research priorities, date

established, funding model, governance structure, and membership. The case study information is

sourced from both online resources (including website, annual reports, brochures, legal documents,

workshop summaries, etc.), and interview findings with key research network leaders. Section 4 is

the comparative analysis piece that focuses on trends, strengths and weaknesses and best practices

of the selected international research networks. The best practices component includes the setting

of research priorities, stakeholder engagement, and accelerating the pace of research. Lastly,

Section 5 provides a menu of actionable options to support the creation and design of a pan-

Canadian Network of Expertise for Oil Spill Research. Annexed material includes the interview

protocols (Annex A), interview transcripts (Annex B), references (Annex C), and the letter of

introduction from Environment Canada (Annex D).

1.1 BACKGROUND

Since 2012, the Government of Canada has taken action to support its vision for a World Class

Tanker Safety System, as part of its plan for responsible resource development. The 2013 Speech

from the Throne re-iterated this goal of responsible resource development focusing in particular on

measures to protect against spills and other risks to the environment and local communities.1 With

increased transportation of energy exports to new markets, the tanker safety system aim is to

enhance navigation safety and marine oil spill prevention, strengthen the response capacity and

1 Government of Canada, “Speech from the Throne,” 2013 at http://speech.gc.ca/eng/full-speech

5 | P a g e

ensure that polluters are responsible for costs in the event of a spill. In particular, the 2012

Economic Action Plan proposed $35.7 million over two years to further strengthen Canada’s tanker

safety regime and support responsible development.2

The Tanker Safety Expert Panel, an independent panel of tanker safety experts was also established

in the 2012 Economic Action Plan. The Panel was mandated to conduct a pan-Canadian review and

assessment of Canada’s ship-source oil spill preparedness and response regime, as it applies to oil

handling facilities and ship-source oil spill preparedness and response. The Panel submitted two

reports to the Minister of Transport:3

1. On the current regime south of 60° N was submitted November 2013

2. On requirements for the Arctic and for hazardous and noxious substances nationally;

submitted September 2014

The Government is reviewing the Panel’s reports and will present measures to respond to its

recommendations in consultation with industry and Canadians. As highlighted in the 2014 federal

budget, the funding has since supported “increased tanker safety inspections, a new incident

command system, new and modified aids to navigation, and stronger oversight requirements for

pollution prevention and response at oil handling facilities.” 4

As the lead federal department for a wide range of environmental issues affecting Canadians,

Environment Canada is a key science-based department involved in supporting and strengthening

Canada’s World-Class Tanker Safety System (along with, but not limited to: Transport Canada, the

Canadian Coast Guard, Natural Resources Canada, , and Fisheries and Oceans Canada). According

to Environment Canada’s Departmental Performance Report 2013-14, strategic outcomes and

related sub-programs affected by Canada’s World-Class Tanker Safety System include but are not

limited to: Meteorological and Ice Services in Support of Marine Navigation sub-program supporting

Environment Canada’s strategic outcome to equip Canadians to make informed decisions on

changing weather, water and climate conditions, and Substances Management, Marine Pollution,

and Environmental Emergencies sub-programs supporting Environment Canada’s strategic

outcome to minimize threats to Canadians and their environment from pollution. 5

2 Government of Canada, “Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity,” March 2012 at http://www.budget.gc.ca/2012/plan/pdf/Plan2012-eng.pdf; page 97-99. 3 Transport Canada, “Tanker Safety Expert Panel: About the Review,” 2014 at http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/tankersafetyexpertpanel/about-98.htm 4 Government of Canada, “The Road to Balance: Creating Jobs and Opportunities,” February 2014 at http://www.budget.gc.ca/2014/docs/plan/pdf/budget2014-eng.pdf; page 142-143. 5 Environment Canada, “Departmental Performance Report 2013-14,” 2013-14 at https://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=869893A0-1&printfullpage=true

6 | P a g e

1.2 SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES

The objective of this project is to identify research network models and highlight best practices

that could inform the design of a pan-Canadian Network of Expertise on Oil Spill Research. Key

goals of a pan-Canadian Network of Expertise could include the delivery of a cross-sector oil spill

research agenda; expedited and consolidated oil spill research across Canada; growth in existing

research capacity in Canadian universities; strengthened communication between scientific experts

and environment emergency response authorities; and increased availability and accessibility of

research to non-experts.

The scope of the selected international research networks included: a focus on the natural or

physical sciences, national or international in scope and membership, and not based in Canada, see

Figure 1.

FIGURE 1 - INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH NETWORKS SCOPE

Select International Research Networks Focu

s o

n o

il sp

ill r

esea

rch

Focu

s o

n N

atu

ral o

r P

hys

ical

Sci

en

ces

Nat

ion

al in

sco

pe

and

mem

ber

ship

Inte

rnat

ion

al in

sco

pe

and

mem

ber

ship

No

t b

ased

in C

anad

a

1. Antarctic Climate and Ecosystem Cooperative Research Centre (ACE CRC) ✓ ✓ ✓

2. Arctic Oil Spill Response Technology Joint Industry Programme (JIP) ✓ ✓ ✓

3. BalticSTERN ✓ ✓ ✓

4. Centre of Documentation, Research, and Experimentation on Accidental Water Pollution (Cedre) ✓ ✓ ✓

5. The Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) ✓ ✓ ✓

6. Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative (GoMRI) ✓ ✓ ✓

7. Helmholtz Association ✓ ✓ ✓

8. Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee (IARPC) Collaborations ✓ ✓ ✓

9. Joint Programming Initiative on Agriculture, Food Security and Climate Change (FACCE-JPI) ✓ ✓ ✓

10. The National Centre for Ocean Forecasting (NCOF) ✓ ✓ ✓

7 | P a g e

Research networks were further identified based on all or some of the following organizational

objectives (as illustrated in Figure 2):

1. Define a coordinated scientific research agenda among multiple players (performers

and users and funders);

2. Bring together government/public sector, academia, and industry;

3. Accelerate the pace of research, through means such as partnering, leveraging

investments, recruiting new expertise, etc. (i.e. not solely through monetary

mechanisms);

4. Engage stakeholders (e.g. Aboriginals, general public, municipalities); and,

5. Focus on public-good research (as opposed to commercialization)

Note that for the purpose of this study, the ‘focus on public good research’ criteria is based on

strong expectations that publicly funded research organizations should remain “dedicated

exclusively to the creation of public goods for the good of society.”6

FIGURE 2 – INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH NETWORKS & ORGANIZATIONAL OBJECTIVES

Select International Research Networks D

efin

e a

coo

rdin

ated

scie

nti

fic

rese

arch

agen

da

amo

ng

mu

ltip

le

pla

yers

Bri

ng

toge

ther

gove

rnm

ent/

pu

blic

sect

or,

aca

dem

ia a

nd

ind

ust

ry

Acc

eler

atin

g th

e p

ace

of

rese

arch

Enga

ges

stak

eho

lder

s

Focu

s o

n p

ub

lic g

oo

d

rese

arch

1. ACE CRC ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

2. JIP ✓ ✓

3. BalticSTERN ✓ ✓ ✓

4. Cedre ✓ ✓

5. CGIAR ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

6. GoMRI ✓ ✓

7. Helmholtz Association ✓ ✓ ✓

IARPC Collaborations ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

8. FACCE-JPI ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

9. NCOF ✓ ✓

6 Sandra Schillo, “Commercialization and Public Good: Conflict, Complement, or Critical Component?” Technology Innovation Management Review July 2014 at http://timreview.ca/article/810

8 | P a g e

2. METHODOLOGY

The international research networks were selected in accordance with the defined project scope

(see Section 1.2 above). There was a diversity in structure and design including: government

consortium, unincorporated joint venture supported by a federal government, joint industry

program, not-for-profit, and more. The international research networks selected also covered

multiple jurisdictions including the United States, France, the EU, the Nordic region and Australia,

and two networks with global reach, see Figure 3.

FIGURE 3 – JURISDICTIONS OF THE INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH NETWORKS

Lastly, the international research networks were selected on the basis of their perceived success.

For the purpose of this report, success was defined as: a research network with high-level of

collaboration between various stakeholders, high-levels of stakeholder engagement, accelerated

pace of research, and/or best practices and models that can be replicated for the purposes of a

proposed pan-Canadian Network of Expertise on Oil Spills.

With the list of international research networks approved by Environment Canada on February 17,

multiple lines of evidence were pursued to support the development of the case studies as well as

the comparative analysis, see Figure 4.

9 | P a g e

FIGURE 4 – LINES OF EVIDENCE

Case Studies and

Comparative Analysis

Internet Research Interviews

Research Network Websites

Peer-reviewed journal articles

Other publications

Lead Researcher

Canadian experts

CASE STUDIES

Design ✓ ✓ ✓

Governance models ✓ ✓ ✓

Membership ✓ ✓ ✓

Funding (i.e. resources) ✓ ✓ ✓

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

Strengths and Weaknesses ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Trends ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Best Practices on Setting Research Priorities

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Best Practices on Stakeholder Engagement

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Best Practices on Accelerating the Pace of Research

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Interviews were conducted with 10 international research networks, see Figure 5. The interview

questions were established and approved by Environment Canada (see Annex A) and covered the

following categories: overview (mission, research priorities, funding, governance, and

membership), collaboration, and best practices. Note the importance of validating the overview of

the research network as not all websites featured up-to-date information.

Once the key person responsible for managing the research network was identified, an email was

then sent to each individual detailing the project background (including a letter of introduction from

Environment Canada, see Annex D), and requesting an interview, whereby a date and time was

confirmed. The interview questions were shared in advance with the interviewee to facilitate the

interview process. The interviews were between one hour and one and a half hours in length via

conference call. The participation rate was 100% (see Annex B for interview transcripts).

10 | P a g e

FIGURE 5 – INTERVIEWS WITH RESEARCH NETWORK LEADERS

International Research Network Jurisdiction Interviewee, Title

Date Interviewed

1. Antarctic Climate and Ecosystem Cooperative Research Centre (ACE CRC)

Australia Dr. Tony Worby, CEO March 3, 2015

2. Arctic Oil Spill Response Technology Joint Industry Programme (JIP)

Global Mr. Joseph Mullin, Programme Manager

March 11, 2015

3. BalticSTERN Nordic region

Ms. Siv Ericsdotter, Head of the Secretariat

March 5, 2015

4. Centre of Documentation, Research, and Experimentation on Accidental Water Pollution (Cedre)

France Mr. Gilbert le Lann, Director

March 4, 2015

5. The Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)

Global Dr. Alain Vidal, Strategic Director and Senior Partnership Advisor

March 12, 2015

6. Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative (GoMRI)

United States

Dr. Rita Colwell, Research Board Chairman; Dr. Chuck Wilson, Chief Scientific Officer; and Ms. Jennifer Pettit, American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS)

March 4, 2015

7. Helmholtz Association Germany Ms. Effrosyni Chelioti, Director of International Affairs

March 11, 2015

8. Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee (IARPC) Collaborations

United States

Dr. Sandra Starkweather, Implementation Scientist

March 4, 2015

9. Joint Programming Initiative on Agriculture, Food Security and Climate Change (FACCE-JPI)

Europe Ms. Heather McKhann, Secretariat

March 2, 2015

10. The National Centre for Ocean Forecasting (NCOF)

England Dr. Stephen de Mora, Chairman

February 26, 2015

11 | P a g e

In person interviews were also conducted with two leading Canadian science policy experts, see

Figure 6. The interview questions posed included identifying successful international research

networks, trends, and best practices (see Annex A).

FIGURE 6 – INTERVIEWS WITH CANADIAN SCIENCE POLICY EXPERTS

Canadian Science Policy Expert

Background Date

Interviewed

11. David B. Watters Member of the Network of Centres of Excellence (NCE) Standing Selection Committee which assesses the creation of new NCEs in Canada

March 4, 2015

12. Paul Dufour Fellow and Adjunct Professor with the Institute for Science, Society and Policy at the University of Ottawa

March 3, 2015

See Annex B for interview transcripts.

12 | P a g e

3. CASE STUDIES

This section provides a detailed, in-depth overview of each of the ten selected international

research networks and their respective missions, research priorities, date established, funding

structures, governance models, and membership. Figure 7 provides a high level overview of these

characteristics including the number of research priorities, the number of research projects, the

annual budget, governance structure, the number of members, and the types of members

(government bodies, universities/colleges, research institutes, and/or industry).

The age range of the research network selected is varied, with the youngest established relatively

recently in 2012 (the Arctic Oil Spill Response Technology Joint Industry Program (JIP)), and the

oldest in 1971 (Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)) – almost 45

years ago. The average age of the all ten research networks is 18.5, with a median of 15.5. The older

research networks typically have been through multiple iterations, including the Helmholtz

Association and CGIAR.

The median number of research themes identified was 4.5 (average of 4) with the lowest number

being 1 and the highest 6. The median number of research projects was 8, and the average number

of research projects is 32 (skewed because of the high number of projects at the Gulf of Mexico

Research Initiative (214 projects)).

The research networks had a median of 15 members (average of 14 members). The range varied

from 4 members for the National Centre for Ocean Forecasting (NCOF) to 21 members at the Joint

Programming Initiative on Agriculture, Food Security and Climate Change (FACCE-JPI). Membership

is defined differently for each research network. The Antarctic Climate and Ecosystem Cooperative

Research Centre (ACE CRC) has a total of 20 members (international in scope) with 7 categorized as

core partners, and the remaining 13 as formal partnerships. ACE CRC membership is predominantly

government bodies and academic researchers with minimal industry participation (see Section

4.2.2 on Weaknesses – Challenge of Collaborating with Industry Partners). JIP membership is

predominantly industry with nine oil and gas companies, and academic researchers from post-

secondary institutions and research institutes. Both BalticSTERN and FACCE-JPI membership are

international countries. The Centre of Documentation, Research and Experimentation on

Accidental Water Pollution (Cedre) members are a mix of French government departments,

research institutes and industry associations. Both CGIAR and the Helmholtz Association research

centres are considered as members with 15 and 18 research centres respectively. CGIAR research

centres are international and Helmholtz Association research centres are within Germany (see

Figure 12). Given their scale, it is not surprising that CGIAR and Helmholtz Association feature

participation from a variety of stakeholders including government bodies, post-secondary

institutions, research institutes, and industry. Lastly, both the Interagency Arctic Research Policy

Committee (IARPC) and NCOF are comprised of national government bodies, 14 and 4 respectively.

13 | P a g e

FIGURE 7 – AN OVERVIEW OF THE RESEARCH NETWORKS

International Research Network

Dat

e Es

tab

lish

ed

No

. of

Res

earc

h P

rio

riti

es

No

. of

Res

earc

h P

roje

cts

An

nu

al B

ud

get

($)

Go

vern

ance

Str

uct

ure

No

. of

Mem

ber

s

Members include:

Go

vern

men

t b

od

ies

Un

iver

sity

/Co

llege

s

Res

earc

h in

stit

ute

s

Ind

ust

ry

1. ACE CRC

2. Australia 1991 4 - $5 million / year for 5 years

Governing board (mix of representative and independent); Executive Committee; Management Team

20 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

3. JIP

4. Global 2012 6 10 $5.25 million /

year for 4 years

Executive Steering Committee Technical Working Groups Programme Manager

9 ✓ ✓ ✓

5. BalticSTERN

6. 9 Baltic Sea countries7

2009 1 5 €600,000 / year for 3 years

Steering Group chaired by Stockholm Resilience Centre; Secretariat

9 ✓ ✓

7. Cedre France

1979 1 5 to 10 €5 million / year General Assembly;

Board of Governors 20 ✓ ✓ ✓

8. CGIAR Global

1971 4 15 $1 billion / year (in 2013)

CGIAR Fund Council; CGIAR Consortium Board; Interdependent Science and Partnership Council;

15 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

9. GoMRI United States

2010 5 214 $50 million /

year for 10 years

Research Board; Chief Scientific Officer; Administrative; Grant Unit

* ✓ ✓ ✓

10. Helmholtz

11. Germany 1995 6 - €3.99 billion /

year (in 2015)

Senate; President (and VPs) Assembly of Members

18 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

12. IARPC Collaborations

United States

1984 7 12 Unknown Principal representatives from 14 members chaired by NSF 14 ✓

13. FACCE-JPI European Union

2010 5 5 €5.4 million / year for 3 years

Governing Board; Scientific Advisory Board; Stakeholder Advisory Board; Secretariat

21 ✓

14. NCOF England

2004 1 8 $0 Governing Board; Executive Committee 4 ✓

*GoMRI does not have ‘members’ but rather a number of researchers working on the 214 projects.

7 The nine Baltic Sea countries of BalticSTERN include Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Russia and Lithuania.

14 | P a g e

AN OVERVIEW OF FUNDING MODELS

The research networks have differing budgets and models of funding. The median annual budgets

is approximately $5 million, however it is worth noting the massive scope of both the CGIAR with

$1 billion in 2013 and Helmholtz Association with €3.99 billion (or $5.37 billion CAD). Also note that

the National Centre for Ocean Forecasting (NCOF) has zero budget to support either its

administrative activities or collaborative research projects (see Section 4.2.2 “A lack or an

uncertainty of funding”).

A number of the research networks were financed by Governments. For example, the Interagency

Arctic Research Policy Committee (IARPC) Collaborations administrative and web-based activities

are backed by the National Science Foundation (NSF) which is mainly financed by the US federal

government. The Antarctic Climate and Ecosystem Cooperative Research Centre (ACE CRC) is

supported by the Australian Government’s Cooperative Research Centres Program (however it is

worth noting that ACE CRC leverages significant in-kind investment through its partners).

BalticSTERN is funded from a variety of Baltic country government agencies such as the Finnish

Advisory Board of Sectoral Research and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. Two thirds

of Helmholtz Association’s funding comes from public sponsors (9:1 split between Federal and State

authorities). As illustrated in Figure 8, the funding has increased significantly from 2005. 8

Interestingly, the individual Helmholtz Centres are responsible for attracting more than 30% of the

funding themselves in the form of contract funding provided by a mix of public and private sector

sponsors.

FIGURE 8 – HELMHOLTZ ASSOCIATION RESOURCES FROM 2005 TO 2013

8 Helmholtz Association, “20 years – Helmholtz Association Presentation,” Berlin 28 March 2015.

2.2642.349

2.433

2.616

2.851 2.892

3.3103.409

3.598

20.000

22.000

24.000

26.000

28.000

30.000

32.000

34.000

36.000

38.000

2.000

2.200

2.400

2.600

2.800

3.000

3.200

3.400

3.600

3.800

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Staff numbersCosts

Million €

Total Costs

15 | P a g e

A unique funding model includes Helmholtz’s programme-oriented funding, which is a centrepiece

of the 2001 reform of the association.9 Prior to 2001, Helmholtz resources went to individual

institutions whereas today, resources are spread across the Helmholtz Centres via research

programmes that compete with one another for programme-oriented funding. Research

programmes are put forward usually by a collaboration of at least two Helmholtz Centres, which

are then evaluated by an international and independent group of experts. This entire process is

overseen by the Helmholtz President.

In addition, the President of the Helmholtz Association is equipped with an “Initiative and

Networking Fund,” a unique special control instrument that helps the association complete reforms

quickly and efficiently.10 Roughly $30 million is earmarked for the Fund and is used for three core

areas: networking with universities, international networking, and promoting young scientists.

According to Ms. Chelioti (Director of International Affairs at Helmholtz Association), the overall

aim of the Fund is to establish examples of best practice at individual Helmholtz Centres in

throughout the Association, as well as to support particular projects resulting from program

evaluations or consultations with the Helmholtz Senate.

The CGIAR Fund is a multi-donor trust fund that finances CGIAR research guided by the Strategy

and Results Framework. The Fund is administered by the World Bank, as Trustee, and governed by

the Fund Council. As the decision-making body of the CGIAR Fund, the Council is comprised of

representative donors and other stakeholders. The Council relies on the advice of an appointed

panel of leading scientific experts, called the Independent Science and Partnership Council to

approve CGIAR Research Programs and allocate resources. It is important to note that the funds are

linked to results to ensure that research impacts generate benefits for the poor: “Before receiving

funding, CGIAR Research Programs set out their expected achievements and provide verifiable

targets against which progress can be monitored.”11

Donors to the CGIAR Fund make contributions on an annual basis (or multi-annual basis for some)

and must contribute a minimum of $500,000. The donors are primarily countries (including Canada)

as well as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the International Development Research Centre,

and the International Fund for Agricultural Development. Donors have three “windows” by which

to designate their contributions:

1. “Contributions to Window 1 are the least restricted, leaving to the Fund Council how these

funds are allocated to CGIAR Research Programs, used to pay system costs or otherwise

applied to achieving the CGIAR mission.

2. Contributions to Window 2 are designated by Fund donors to specific CGIAR Research

Programs.

3. Contributions to Window 3 are allocated by Fund donors to specific CGIAR Centers.”12

9 Helmholtz Association, “Programme-Oriented Funding,” at http://www.helmholtz.de/en/about_us/programme_oriented_funding/ 10 Helmholtz Association, “Annual Report 2013,” at http://www.helmholtz.de/fileadmin/user_upload/2013_AnnualReport_HelmholtzAssoication_EN_web.pdf 11 CGIAR, “CGIAR Fund,” at http://www.cgiar.org/who-we-are/cgiar-fund/ 12 CGIAR, “CGIAR Fund,” at http://www.cgiar.org/who-we-are/cgiar-fund/

16 | P a g e

According to Dr. Vidal from CGIAR, the donors have welcomed the reformed funding model with

significant increases in the budget. Since the launch of the reform in 2008, when total funding to

the system stood at $531 million, funding has grown by $455 million, of 86% over 5 years, averaging

13% per year. 13 Note that given the variability of contributions on an annual basis, CGIAR is

exploring more innovative funding whereby a portion of the budget is guaranteed. Dr. Vidal,

Strategic Director and Senior Partnership Advisor from CGIAR gave the example where 60% of the

budget is covered through loans for the next 3 years. The reasoning and benefit is to give more

funding stability to CGIAR, see Figure 9.

FIGURE 9 – CGIAR FUND INFLOWS, DISBURSEMENTS AND BALANCE, 2013 ($ MILLION)14

Alternatively, both the Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative (GoMRI) and the Arctic Oil Spill Response

Technology Joint Industry Programme (JIP) are funded by industry. In particular, GoMRI is entirely

funded by a $500 million commitment from BP and the JIP is supported by nine oil and gas

companies with a budget of $21 million for the duration of the four year programme (each

contributed $2.5 million).

Lastly, NCOF and the Centre of Documentation, Research and Experimentation on Accidental Water

Pollution’s (Cedre) funding model is to each work collaboratively with their members and/or

international partners to submit proposals for funding. For example, NCOF is the vehicle by which

the Met Office, Plymouth Marine Laboratory, the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and

Aquaculture Science (CEFAS) and the National Oceanography Centre collectively bid on

opportunities for funding from the EU. NCOF Chairman, Dr. Stephen de Mora stated that these

proposals may not have been successful if the organizations had bid independently; in other words,

the quality of the proposal is enhanced significantly with the collective organizational expertise. In

addition, while half of Cedre’s annual budget is from the French Government, the other half is

13 CGIAR, “CGIAR Financial Report for Year 2013,” Accessed on March 25 at http://library.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10947/3069/CGIAR%20Finance%20Report%202013.pdf?sequence=7 14 CGIAR, “CGIAR Financial Report for Year 2013,” Accessed on March 25 at

http://library.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10947/3069/CGIAR%20Finance%20Report%202013.pdf?sequence=7

17 | P a g e

sourced from contracts and tenders. On a case-by-case basis, Cedre puts together a consortium to

respond to request for proposals. Note that Cedre typically has anywhere between 5 to 10

collaborative projects ongoing at any given time that last between 2 to 4 years.

AN OVERVIEW OF GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES

The majority of the governance structures are not unique. In general, a research network will have

a governing structure that is comprised of representative bodies where each member is

represented on a Governance Board for example, and/or independent bodies (individuals who are

from organizations not considered a member of the research network). Typically, the role of a

governance board is as a decision-making body.

The following research networks Governance Board include only representative bodies: the IARPC

Collaborations governance board includes a principal representative from each 14 federal agencies,

the JIP’s governing board features a representative from each of the nine oil and gas companies,

FACCE-JPI’s governing board includes up to two representatives from each of the 21 member

countries, and NCOF’s governing board includes representatives from all four members (the Met

Office, Plymouth Marine Laboratory, the Centre for Environment, Fisheries, and Aquaculture

Science (CEFAS) and the National Oceanography Centre).

The ACE CRC’s Governing Board includes representatives from each core partner including the

Australian Antarctic Division; Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization

(CSIRO); University of Tasmania; the Australian Government’s Department of Climate Change and

Energy Efficiency; the Department of Industry; the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine

Research (Germany); and the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd (New

Zealand). ACE CRC’s Governing Board also includes two independent members: Chairperson, Dr.

Katherine Woodthorpe (a management advisor and professional director, specialising in innovation

and commercialization) and Mr. Tony Coleman (a director at a valuation firm called Lonergan

Edwards and Associates).15

The GoMRI Research Board is a unique governance structure model where all members (total of

20) are independent experts with academic backgrounds on science, public health and research

administration. As outlined in the Master Research Agreement, all members “have peer-recognized

research credentials and are from academic institutions, or have been associated for long periods

with academic institutions, or from other nationally-recognized research entities such as a national

laboratory, research institute, or other peer-recognized research entity.”16 When the Gulf of Mexico

Alliance became party to GoMRI, the governors of the five Gulf of Mexico states (Alabama, Florida,

Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas) nominated two Research Board members each, all of whom were

approved by the Research Board and all were appointed to the Research Board by the Gulf of

Mexico Alliance. According to the Master Research Agreement, the general role of the Research

15 ACE CRC, “Governance,” at http://www.acecrc.org.au/About/Governance 16 GoMRI, “Master Research Agreement,” Accessed February 5, 2015 at http://gulfresearchinitiative.org/about-

gomri/master-research-agreement/

18 | P a g e

Board is to “ensure the intellectual quality, research effectiveness and academic independence of

the GoMRI programs, select the Research Consortia that shall receive GoMRI funds for Approved

Research Projects pursuant to merit review by peer evaluation as described in the NSB Peer

Evaluation Process, and perform an annual review and approval for funding of research programs

conducted at such Research Consortia. Except as otherwise herein provided or delegated, the

Research Board shall serve as the decision-making and oversight body regarding the research

conducted pursuant to the GoMRI.”17

Other research networks had an individual heading the organization, such as ACE CRC’s CEO, and

Helmholtz Association’s President. Alternatively, GoMRI had a Chief Scientific Officer who

coordinated research and communications for the Research Board. Some research networks had a

function that provided scientific advice, such as FACCE-JPI’s Scientific Advisory Board that guided

the Strategic Research Agenda and GoMRI’s Research Board is comprised of 20 independent

individuals with scientific, public health or administration expertise.

Secretariats played a key role coordinating activities for a number of research networks including

the IARPC Collaborations, the BalticSTERN and FACCE-JPI. Note that the BalticSTERN Secretariat was

also responsible for producing a synthesis report to communicate the research outcomes to

decision-makers.

One unique governing structure model included FACCE-JPI’s Stakeholder Advisory Board which was

comprised of 22 member organizations including farmer organizations, industries, administration,

etc. The Stakeholder Advisory Board provided feedback on various FACCE-JPI activities such as the

development of the Strategic Research Agenda. Lastly, CGIAR featured a unique governing structure

with a separate council to govern the CGIAR Fund, see Section 3.5.5 on CGIAR Governance.

17 GoMRI, “Master Research Agreement,” Accessed February 5, 2015 at http://gulfresearchinitiative.org/about-

gomri/master-research-agreement/

19 | P a g e

3.1. ANTARCTIC CLIMATE AND ECOSYSTEM COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE (ACE CRC)

3.1.1 MISSION

ACE CRC “conducts research and provides information

on the role of Antarctica and the Southern Ocean in

driving the global climate and the impacts of climate

change on Australia and the rest of the world.”18

3.1.2 RESEARCH PRIORITIES

According to interviewee Dr. Tony Worby, CEO of ACE CRC, the research priorities are guided by a

number of national government strategy documents which are compiled through consultations

with the scientific community. ACE CRC has four cross-disciplinary areas of focus:19

1. Oceans – the Southern Ocean and Sea Level Rise

2. Cryosphere – three key research projects: the dynamic role polar ice sheets play in

determining future sea levels, the role of Antarctic sea ice in the climate system; and

the records and dynamics of past and present climate changes

3. Carbon – the Southern Ocean Uptake

4. Ecosystems – impacts of climate change on Antarctic marine life.

3.1.3 YEAR ESTABLISHED

ACE CRC was originally established in 1991 as the “CRC for the Antarctic and Southern Ocean

Environment” in the first round of funding for the Australian Government’s Cooperative Research

Centres (CRC) Programme. Since then, it has been refunded in 1997 (as the CRC for Antarctica and

the Southern Ocean), and in 2003 and 2010 as the ACE CRC.

The CRC program “delivers significant economic, environmental, and social benefits to Australia by

supporting end-user driven research partnerships between publicly funded researchers and end-

users to address clearly articulated, major challenges that require medium to long-term

collaborative efforts.”20 Note that the CRC Program is currently under review and it is expected to

be completed by early 2015.21

18 ACE CRC, “Overview,” Accessed on February 19, 2015 at http://www.acecrc.org.au/access/repository/resource/ba51e116-45b4-102f-a3d0-40404adc5e91/04%2011%20ACE%20OVERVIEW%20LEAFLET%20web.pdf 19 ACE CRC, “2013-2014 Annual Report,” Accessed on February 19, 2015 at http://www.acecrc.org.au/access/repository/resource/b1e25166-ba80-1032-820a-40404adc5e91/ACE%20CRC%20Annual%20Report%202013-2014.pdf 20 ACE CRC, “The CRC Program,” Accessed on February 19, 2015 at http://www.acecrc.org.au/About/CRC%20Program 21 Australian Government: Business, “CRC Programme Review,” Accessed on February 19, 2015 at http://www.business.gov.au/grants-and-assistance/Collaboration/CRC/CRC-Programme-Review/Pages/default.aspx

ACE CRC is an unincorporated

joint-venture established and supported under the Australian Government’s Cooperative Research Centres Programme.

20 | P a g e

3.1.4 FUNDING

The Government of Australia recently extended ACE CRC activities to 30 June 2019 with $25 million

in funding. The application for funds and the scope of the ACE CRC’s research program for this

period were approved by Government on 20 May 2013.22 Note that ACE CRC was able to attract

significant levels of Australian and international funds in cash and in-kind support.23

3.1.5 GOVERNANCE

The Governing Board is comprised of an independent chairperson (Dr. Katherine Woodthorpe), a

representative from each core partner, two representatives from other participants and two

persons independent of the Participants, see Figure 10 which illustrates ACE CRC governance and

management structure.24 Board meetings are held every quarter.

The ACE CRC Executive Committee is comprised of the leader of each of the four research programs.

The Executive Committee advises the CEO and Board on a range of matters relating to management

of resources, research coordination and research utilization across the ACE CRC portfolio. Note that

the University of Tasmania acts as the central agent when ACE CRC enters into legal contracts and

so forth. According to ACE CRC’s CEO, the management team is very lean with just himself, a deputy

CEO, a public affairs manager and an administrator that runs the organization.

FIGURE 10 – GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE OF ACE CRC25

22 ACE CRC, “2013-2014 Annual Report,” Accessed on February 19 at http://www.acecrc.org.au/access/repository/resource/b1e25166-ba80-1032-820a-40404adc5e91/ACE%20CRC%20Annual%20Report%202013-2014.pdf 23 ACE CRC, “Exit Report 2010-2014,” Accessed on February 19, 2015 at http://www.acecrc.org.au/access/repository/resource/b22b6f76-ba81-1032-820a-40404adc5e91/ACE%20CRC%20Exit%20Report%202010-2014_FINAL.pdf 24 ACE CRC, “Our Board,” Accessed on February 14, 2015 at http://www.acecrc.org.au/ 25 ACE CRC, “2013-2014 Annual Report,” Accessed on February 19 at http://www.acecrc.org.au/access/repository/resource/b1e25166-ba80-1032-820a-40404adc5e91/ACE%20CRC%20Annual%20Report%202013-2014.pdf

21 | P a g e

3.1.6 MEMBERS

ACE CRC partners include government research institutes, government, universities, research

institutes, and industry. The ACE CRC’s seven core partners include: the Australian Antarctic

Division; Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO); University of

Tasmania; the Australian Government’s Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency; the

Department of Industry; the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research (Germany);

and the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd (New Zealand).

ACE CRC also has thirteen formal partnerships with: the Australian Government’s Department of

Environment; Tasmanian Government; Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling (CPOM – UK);

Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences (CAMS); Institute of Low Temperature Science (ILTS –

Japan); First Institute of Oceanography (FIO – China); Laboratoire d'Etudes en Géophysique et

Océanographie Spatiales (LEGOS – France); National Institute of Polar Research (NIPR - Japan);

University of Texas at Austin; University of Texas at San Antonio; Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB);

RPS MetOcean and SGS Economics and Planning Pty Ltd.26

Note while ACE CRC had a number of commercial supporting partners, there has been a decline of

industry involvement (see Section 4.2.2 the Challenge of Collaboration with Industry).

26 ACE CRC, “Overview,” Accessed on February 19, 2015 at http://www.acecrc.org.au/access/repository/resource/ba51e116-45b4-102f-a3d0-40404adc5e91/04%2011%20ACE%20OVERVIEW%20LEAFLET%20web.pdf

22 | P a g e

3.2. ARCTIC OIL SPILL RESPONSE TECHNOLOGY JOINT INDUSTRY PROGRAMME (JIP)

3.2.1 MISSION

The Arctic Oil Spill Response

Technology Joint Industry Program (JIP)

is a four-year collaborative industry

effort to enhance Arctic oil spill

capabilities. The JIP objective is

“minimize industry impact on the environment, lead and deploy industry best practices and work

together using joint expertise, resources and funding to improve technologies and methodologies

for Arctic oil spill response.”27 The JIP combines effort and knowledge, and increases opportunities

to test equipment, conduct large scale field experiments, develop oil spill response technologies

and methodologies, and raise awareness of existing industry oil spill response capabilities in the

Arctic region.

3.2.2 RESEARCH PRIORITIES

The JIP consists of ten (10) individual projects across six key areas of research including:

1. Dispersants

2. Environmental Effects

3. In Situ Burning (ISB)

4. Mechanical Recovery

5. Trajectory Modelling

6. Remote Sensing

Research teams are selected through a formal request for proposal process. Achievements to date

include the completion of 9 reports (all available on the website) that build a comprehensive picture

of Arctic oil spill response technologies. Note that the new research phase will include laboratory

and basin testing of specific technologies.

3.2.3 YEAR ESTABLISHED

The creation of the JIP was an the outcome of a joint recommendation in 2009 by the IPIECA Oil

Spill Working Group, The Industry Technical Advisory Committee and the API Emergency

Preparedness and Response Program Group. The committee’s task was to review the oil and gas

industry’s prior and future work scope on the prevention and response to oil spills in ice, to identify

technology advances and research needs in industry preparedness, and prioritize identified issues.

27 Arctic Response Technology, “Frequently Asked Questions,” accessed on February 16, 2015 at http://www.arcticresponsetechnology.org/faq

JIP is an international joint industry research program that builds on decades of R&D in Arctic oil spill response.

23 | P a g e

The official launch of the JIP’s research programme was at the Arctic Technology Conference on 5

December 2012. Note that interviewee and JIP Programme Manager, Dr. Mullin indicated that the

initial conversations amongst the oil and gas companies began in 2010 whereby industry

representatives met to collectively discuss and define the scope of the various themes.

3.2.4 FUNDING

The JIP has a total budget of US$21 million for the duration of the four year program. The source of

the funding was from each of the JIP members who put $2.5 million into a communal funding pot.

The research projects are funded using a formal Requests for Proposal process. For example, for

The Fate of Dispersed Oil under Ice project, the overall goal for the research project was defined

and included the aim “to provide additional evidence to support dispersant use and decision making

in ice-covered waters and to determine optimal operational dispersion criteria. The primary

research objective is to develop a detailed numerical model that predicts the potential for a

dispersed oil plume to resurface and reform a new slick under the ice and then run the model with

varying ice concentrations, release types, environmental conditions, oil types, and levels of

turbulence.”28 SINTEF, an independent research organization in Trondheim, Norway was awarded

the contract for phase one of the project.

3.2.5 GOVERNANCE

JIP is managed by the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers with the Chair of the JIP as

Becky Peavler from ConocoPhillips, and the Programme Manager is Joseph Mullin. In addition, the

JIP is coordinated by an Executive Steering Committee comprised of representatives from the

funding companies. There are also a number of Technical Working Groups led by recognized subject

matter experts from each of the nine member oil and gas companies. The six technical working

groups each focus on a different area of oil spill response: dispersants environmental effects,

trajectory modelling, remote sensing, mechanical recovery and in-situ burning. The Technical

Working Groups are responsible for individual research projects including to develop requests for

proposals, review research conducted and the findings, and work with the Communications

Committee to disseminate research results. There is also a field research group to pursue

opportunities where the JIP could participate in possible field releases or field research to collect

scientific and engineering data required to validate certain response technologies and strategies.

3.2.6 MEMBERS

Members of the JIP include the following nine oil companies: BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Eni,

ExxonMobil, North Caspian Operating Company, Shell, Statoil, and Total.

28 Joseph Mullin, “Advancing Oil Spill Response in Arctic Conditions: the Arctic Oil Spill Response Technology – Joint Industry Programme.” International Oil Spill Conference Proceedings: May 2014, Vol. 2014, No. 1, pp. 960-971 at http://ioscproceedings.org/doi/full/10.7901/2169-3358-2014.1.960

24 | P a g e

3.3. BALTIC SYSTEMS TOOLS AND ECOLOGICAL-ECONOMIC EVALUATION – A RESEARCH NETWORK (BALTICSTERN)

3.3.1 MISSION

BalticSTERN is an international research network with partners

in all nine Baltic Sea countries. The aim of the network is to

“combine ecological and economic models to make cost-

benefit analysis and identify cost-effective measures to

improve the environmental state of the Sea.”29

3.3.2 RESEARCH PRIORITIES

The overarching research priority was a cost-benefit analysis on

eutrophication and within the framework of BalticSTERN,

several partners carried out several research projects including:

1. “Protection of the Baltic Sea: Benefits, Costs and Policy Instruments (PROBAPS) – led by

MTT Agrifood Research Finland (Finland) and financed by Finnish Advisory Board of Sectoral

Research

2. BalticSurvey – led by Enveco Environmental Consultancy Ltd. (Sweden) and financed by

SEPA

3. BalticSUN – led by MTT Agrifood Research Finland (Finland) and with multiple funders

4. Cost Modeling and Minimisation – BNI/NERI (Denmark) and MTT Agrifood Research Finland

5. FishSTERN – led by Baltic Nest Institute (Sweden) and financed by the Swedish EPA.” 30

Note that the initial proposal to establish BalticSTERN outlined the work packages’ timetables,

deliverables, task leaders, participating partner organizations and budgets. 31 Also note that

BalticSTERN released eight background papers; one of which focused on Oil Spill Management

(2013).32

3.3.3 YEAR ESTABLISHED

Inspired by the “Economics of Climate Change – The Stern Review” (2007), the Nordic Ministers of

Environment jointly called for a Stern-like review of the Baltic Sea. Following this call, a couple of

29 BalticSTERN Secretariat, “The Baltic Sea – Our Common Treasure: Economics of Saving the Sea,” 2013. Accessed on February 3, 2015 at http://www.stockholmresilience.org/download/18.4531be2013cd58e844853b/1381790136604/BalticSTERN_The+Baltic+Sea+-+Our+Common+Treasure.+Economics+of+Saving+the+Sea_0314.pdf 30 Stockholm Resilience Centre, “The BalticSTERN Network,” Accessed on February 2, 2015 at http://www.stockholmresilience.org/21/research/research-programmes/balticstern/balticstern-network.html 31 Enveco Ltd., “BalticSTERN – a Proposal for an international research and development program,” Accessed on February 3, 2015 at http://www.balticsea2020.org/english/images/Bilagor/balticstern%20program%20report.pdf 32 Linus Hasselstrom, and Scott Cole, “Oil spills management: Background Paper,” 2013. Accessed on February 2, 2015 at http://stockholmresilience.org/download/18.416c425f13e06f977b14a5b/BalticSTERN_Oil+spills+management.pdf

BalticSTERN is an

international research network that performs cost-benefit analyses regarding the environmental problems of the Baltic Sea; with partners in all

countries (9) around the Baltic Sea.

25 | P a g e

Stern-related studies on the Baltic Sea were initiated. In particular, the Swedish Environmental

Protection Agency assessed the existing knowledge regarding the benefits of the sea and the cost

of mitigation, and concluded that more research was needed. As a result, a proposal was developed

to establish BalticSTERN.33 Once various funding pieces were granted from governmental funds in

Finland, Sweden and Denmark, the research was started in the autumn of 2009.34

3.3.4 FUNDING

As illustrated in Section 3.3.2 above, BalticSTERN research projects were financed by a variety of

agencies. According to Ms. Ericsdotter, Head of the BalticSTERN Secretariat, the ability to fund the

network was a challenge. By her estimate, the research network budget was €600,000 per year

(with €100,000 of that allotted to the Secretariat) for three years.

The BalticSTERN Secretariat is financed by the Swedish EPA (SEPA), and in December 2009, SEPA

decided to finance the Secretariat for a further three year period: 2010-2012. In June 2011, the

Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management (SwAM) took over the overall responsibility

for issues regarding marine and water management in Sweden from the SEPA, and since then

BalticSTERN has been financed by SwAM.35

3.3.5 GOVERNANCE

Established at the Stockholm Resilience Centre in September 2009, the BalticSTERN Secretariat role

and responsibilities include coordinating the BalticSTERN Research Network with partners in all

countries around the Baltic Sea, to arrange policy-science dialogues and to communicate research.

A synthesis report was launched in March 2013, “The Baltic Sea – Our Common Treasure. Economics

of Saving the Sea,” providing and overview of research within the network and other relevant

research and was directed to Governments, Parliaments, and other decision makers.

The BalticSTERN Steering Group is chaired by Johan Rockstrom, Director of the Stockholm Resilience

Centre. Members of the Steering Group include individual representatives from the Nordic

Ministries for the Environment including the Swedish Ministry for the Environment, Swedish Agency

for Marine and Water Management, Polish Ministry for the Environment, German Ministry for the

Environment, Estonian Ministry for the Environment, Danish Ministry for the Environment, Finnish

Ministry for the Environment, and Russian Ministry for the Environment; representatives also

include research institutes such as the Latvian Institute of Aquatic Ecology, and universities such as

the University of East Anglia; and lastly, a representative from the EU Commission.

33 Enveco Ltd., “BalticSTERN – a Proposal for an international research and development program,” Accessed on February 3, 2015 at http://www.balticsea2020.org/english/images/Bilagor/balticstern%20program%20report.pdf 34 BalticSTERN Secretariat, “The Baltic Sea – Our Common Treasure: Economics of Saving the Sea,” 2013. Accessed on February 3, 2015 at http://www.stockholmresilience.org/download/18.4531be2013cd58e844853b/1381790136604/BalticSTERN_The+Baltic+Sea+-+Our+Common+Treasure.+Economics+of+Saving+the+Sea_0314.pdf 35 Stockholm Resilience Centre, “BalticSTERN Secretariat,” Accessed on February 2, 2015 at http://www.stockholmresilience.org/21/research/research-programmes/balticstern/balticstern-secretariat.html

26 | P a g e

3.3.6 MEMBERS

The members of BalticSTERN are the nine countries around the Baltic Sea: Denmark, Estonia,

Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia, and Sweden. In addition, the following

institutions have been engaged in BalticSTERN projects:36

NERI/AAU - National Environmental Research Institute, University of Aarhus (Denmark)

Department of Environmental Science, Aarhus University (Denmark)

FOI - Institute of Food and Resource Economics, LIFE,(Denmark)

National Institute of Aquatic Resources - DTU-Aqua, Danish Technical Institute (Denmark)

Stockholm Environment Institute Tallinn Centre, Estonian Institute for Sustainable

Development (SEI-Tallinn SA) (Estonia)

Estonian Marine Institute (Estonia)

MTT Agrifood Research Finland (Finland)

Finnish Game and Fisheries Institute (Finland)

Marine Research Centre, Finnish Environmental Institute SYKE (Finland)

Technische Universität Berlin (Germany)

Johann Heinrich von Thünen Bundesforschungsinstitut (Germany)

Institute of Landscape Arcitecture and Environmental Planning, Berlin Institute of

Technology (Germany)

Baltic International Centre for Economic Policy Studies (BICEPS) (Latvia)

AKTiiVS Ltd, Latvia

Centre for Economic Policy (AAPC) (Lithuania)

Lithuanian Institute for Agrarian Economics (Lithuania)

Warsaw Ecological Economics Centre, University of Warsaw (Poland)

Sea Fisheries Institute (Poland)

Centre for Economic and Financial Research at New Economic School (Russia)

UCC Consulting (Sweden)

Enveco Environmental Economics Consultancy Ltd. (Sweden)

Swedish Board of Fisheries (Sweden)

Baltic Nest Institute at Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University

36 Stockholm Resilience Centre, “The BalticSTERN Network,” Accessed on February 2, 2015 at http://www.stockholmresilience.org/21/research/research-programmes/balticstern/balticstern-network.html

27 | P a g e

3.4. CENTRE OF DOCUMENTATION, RESEARCH, AND EXPERIMENTATION ON ACCIDENTAL WATER POLLUTION (CEDRE)

3.4.1 MISSION

The Centre of Documentation,

Research, and Experimentation

on Accidental Water Pollution

(Cedre) was created “to improve

spill response preparedness and

strengthen the national

response organization,”37 in the

aftermath of the Amoco Cadiz oil spill in January 1979. On a national level, Cedre is responsible for

documentation, research and experimentation on all types of pollutants (such as oil), their effects

on the response means and tools that can be used to combat them. It is charged with providing

advice and expertise to the decision-makers responsible for responding to accidental pollution.

3.4.2 RESEARCH PRIORITIES

Cedre carries out experimentation on all aspects of pollutants, response products and techniques.

Cedre analytical equipment includes an artificial beach and deep-water basin, an experimental hall,

a flume tank, a laboratory, a water column and cultivation tanks in a greenhouse that provide the

technical tools necessary for research purposes. Cedre researchers study the behaviour of oil

products and assess the efficiency of response techniques (recovery, dispersion, burning, etc.)

enabling operational recommendations to be made for contingency planning purposes. Cedre’s

Director Mr. le Lann, stated that research projects can last between 3 months and 2 years. Cedre

also conducts extensive experiments at sea with its partners, as well as reviews of French and

international incidents and their environmental consequences.

Furthermore, the Research team is continually involved in national and European research

programs which aim to further knowledge of pollutants and their behaviour, as well as to develop

response strategies, techniques and products. According to Mr. le Lann, this involves setting up a

consortium on a case-by-basis basis to answer requests for proposals and there can be anywhere

from 5 to 10 collaborative partnership projects running at any given time and the duration of these

projects tends to be longer (2 to 4 years in length). Note that Cedre realizes the importance of

collecting and sharing knowledge and manages an institutional website as well as two educational

sites.38

37 Cedre, “Overview,” Accessed on February 3, 2015 at http://www.cedre.fr/en/cedre/index.php 38 Cedre, “Overview brochure,” Accessed on February 3, 2015 at http://www.cedre.fr/en/cedre/plaquette_gb.pdf

Cedre is a not-for-profit association based in

France responsible for documentation, research and experimentation on pollutants.

28 | P a g e

3.4.3 YEAR ESTABLISHED

Cedre was created as a not-for-profit association on 25 January 1979 as one of the measures taken

in the aftermath of the Amoco Cadiz oil spill.

3.4.4 FUNDING

Cedre manages an annual budget of around €5 million and a staff of 50. It is funded by public bodies

(the State and public administrations, local authorities, public establishments, European Union) and

private organizations (industry and professional unions) via subsidies or contracts and tenders.

According to Cedre Director, Mr. Gilbert le Lann, approximately 50% of Cedres’ funding is of public

origin and the remaining 50% of the total budget is a subsidy granted by the French government,

intended to cover Cedre’s public service mission. The subsidy is managed on behalf of the State by

the Ministry of Ecology, Energy, Sustainable Development and the Sea.39

3.4.5 GOVERNANCE

Cedre is governed by the general assembly of its members and a board of governors.

Representatives of the State and public organizations hold a statutory majority on the board of

governors. There are three officers, the Mediterranean Correspondent, the Oil Industry

Correspondent, and the Caribbean Representative that coordinate Cedre’s partner relations in

terms of service offers and the integration of the experimentation. There is also an officer in charge

of the health, safety and environment (HSE) aspects and investments. The Administration, Finance

and IT Department provides support for all Cedre’s activities (including accounting, tax, cash flow,

budget, IT, etc.) Figure 11 illustrates Cedre’s new governance structure in 2014.

FIGURE 11 – NEW STRUCTURE IN 201440

39 Cedre, “About,” Accessed on February 3 2015 at http://www.cedre.fr/en/cedre/index.php 40 Cedre, “Information Bulletin – Special Feature: Centre turns 35. A look back,” No. 32, September 2014. Accessed on February 4, 2015 at http://www.cedre.fr/en/publication/bulletin32_EN.pdf

29 | P a g e

3.4.6 MEMBERS

Members of Cedre include French government administrations, local authorities at all levels, public

research establishments and private organizations (trade unions, companies). According to Mr. le

Lann, there is approximately 20 members at Cedre that are located in France.

30 | P a g e

3.5. CGIAR

3.5.1 MISSION

CGIAR collaborate with research and development partners to solve development problems. CGIAR

research is carried out by the 15 centres who are members of the CGIAR Consortium in close

collaboration with hundreds of partner organizations, including national and regional research

institutes, civil society organizations, academia and the private sector. To fulfill the mission CGIAR:

“Identifies significant global development

problems that science can help solve;

Collect and organize knowledge related to these

development problems;

Develop research programs to fill the knowledge

gaps to solve these development problems;

Catalyze and lead putting research into practice,

and policies and institutions into place, to solve

these development problems;

Lead monitoring and evaluation, share the

lessons we learn and best practices we discover;

Conserve, evaluate and share genetic diversity;

and

Strengthen skills and knowledge in agricultural

research for development around the world.”41

CGIAR has a new vision: “to reduce poverty and hunger, improve human health and nutrition, and

enhance ecosystem resilience through high-quality international agricultural research, partnership

and leadership.”42 The new vision addresses the key development research challenges for which

the CGIAR has a comparative advantage, both in terms of core research assets and competencies.

3.5.2 RESEARCH PRIORITIES

In pursuing the new vision, the CGIAR will work towards four strategic system-level outcomes:

1. Reduced rural poverty 2. Improved food security 3. Improved nutrition and health 4. Sustainably managed natural resources

41 CGIAR, “Who we are,” Accessed March 3, 2015 at http://www.cgiar.org/who-we-are/ 42 CGIAR, “A Strategy and Results Framework,” Accessed March 3, 2015 at http://library.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10947/2608/Strategy_and_Results_Framework.pdf?sequence=4

CGIAR is a global partnership that unites organizations engaged in research on food security, and is dedicated to reducing rural poverty, increasing food security, improving human health and nutrition, and ensuring more sustainable management of natural resources.

31 | P a g e

3.5.3 YEAR ESTABLISHED

The CGIAR was founded in 1971 by a coalition of donors, including the Ford and Rockefeller

Foundations.43 Partnerships expanded beyond a national breeding program to involve a broadening

range of other kinds of organizations including advanced research institutions in developed

countries, non-governmental organizations, policy bodies, universities and private-sector

companies. This expansion was in response to the initial research effort success and a growing

awareness of the complexity of R&D challenge.

As a result of a comprehensive review of the CGIAR activities and structure in 2010, the organization

is no longer known as the “Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research,” but rather

simply as the CGIAR. The review identified the “proliferation of CGIAR entities and programs, the

dispersal of research focus and the complexity of decision making as severe impediments to

effectiveness. A far-reaching reform process was set in motion, leading to complete reorganization,

and a new set of programs, described in the Strategy and Results Framework.”44 Dr. Vidal, Strategic

Director and Senior Partnership Advisor at CGIAR suggested that the CGIAR is no longer top heavy

and research activities are less ‘silo-ed’ since the reform.

3.5.4 FUNDING

In 2013, CGIAR reached a historic milestone of $1 billion in funding. Donors that contributed to the

CGIAR Fund in 2013 include: Australia, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation,

Canada, China, Denmark, European Commission, Finland, France, India, International Development

Research Centre, International Fund for Agricultural Development, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea,

Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Portugal, Russia, South Africa,

Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, United Kingdom, the United States, and the World

Bank.45 Fund donors include any country or organization (e.g. foundations, multinational agencies

and NGOs) that provides funding to support CGIAR programs and activities and the functioning of

CGIAR bodies and centers. The minimum contribution required to be eligible for representation on

the Fund Council is US$500,000.

The CGIAR Fund is administered by the World Bank and is governed by a separate council comprised

of a representative body of Fund donors and other stakeholders. There are three windows by which

donors can channel their resources: Window 1 whereby the Fund Council decides how these funds

are allocated (such as CGIAR Research Programs, system costs, etc.), Window 2 funds go to specific

CGIAR Research Programs, and Window 3 contributions are allocated by fund donors to specific

43 CGIAR, “Changing Agricultural Research in a Changing World: A Strategy and Results Framework for the Reformed CGIAR,” Accessed on March 3, 2015 at http://library.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10947/5224/CGIAR-SRF-March_2011_BROCHURE.pdf?sequence=1 44 CGIAR, “Changing Agricultural Research in a Changing World: A Strategy and Results Framework for the Reformed

CGIAR,” Accessed on March 3, 2015 at http://library.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10947/5224/CGIAR-SRF-March_2011_BROCHURE.pdf?sequence=1 45 CGIAR, “Annual Report 2013: Featuring Climate-Smart Agriculture,” Accessed on March 3, 2015 at http://library.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10947/3165/CGIAR%20Annual%20Report%20Featuring%20Climate-Smart%20Agriculture%20Download.pdf?sequence=1

32 | P a g e

CGIAR Centres. 46 Note that the Fund Council also appoints an independent panel of leading

scientific experts who provide advice and expertise to all Fund donors, see Section 3.5.5 below.

3.5.5 GOVERNANCE

The Consortium Board is governed by a 10-member board, which oversees the performance of

CGIAR Research Programs and centers according to funding and performance agreements. The

Consortium Board is responsible for leading refinements to the Strategy and Results Framework as

it evolves to meet changing needs, and working with CGIAR Fund donors, research partners, farmers

and other stakeholders through ongoing consultation and the biennial Global Conference on

Agricultural Research for Development.47

The CGIAR Fund, outlined above in Section 3.5.4, is governed by the Fund Council, a representative

body of the fund donors and other stakeholders. The council comprises eight representatives from

developed countries, eight from developing countries and regional organizations, and six from

multilateral and global organizations and foundations. The Fund Council tasks include: “allocating

resources to the CGIAR Research Programs and centers, and managing relationships with donors.

It is also responsible for setting criteria, standards and processes for funding CGIAR Research

Programs.”48 It meets twice a year to make decisions on behalf of all fund donors, who may

participate in meetings as observers. A biennial gathering of all donors, called The Funders Forum,

sets the CGIAR’s strategic direction.

Note that the Fund Council is also responsible for appointing the Independent Science and

Partnership Council (ISPC), a panel of leading scientific experts, who provide independent advice

and expertise to CGIAR donors. The ISPC serves as an intellectual bridge between the Fund and the

Consortium, to support alignment between CGIAR research and the Strategy and Results

Framework.

3.5.6 MEMBERS

There are almost 10,000 scientists, researchers, technicians and working staff at the 15 CGIAR

Research Centres: AfricaRice, Bioversity International, Center for International Forestry Research

(CIFOR), International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), International

Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid

Tropics (ICRISAT), International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), International Institute of

Tropical Agriculture (IITA), International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), International Maize and

Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), International Potato Center (CIP), International Rice

46 CGIAR, “Who We Are – CGIAR Fund,” Accessed on March 3, 2015 at http://www.cgiar.org/who-we-are/cgiar-fund/ 47 CGIAR, “CGIAR Consortium,” Accessed March 3, 2015 at http://www.cgiar.org/cgiar-consortium/ 48 CGIAR, “Changing Agricultural Research in a Changing World: A Strategy and Results Framework for the Reformed CGIAR,” Accessed on March 3, 2015 at http://library.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10947/5224/CGIAR-SRF-March_2011_BROCHURE.pdf?sequence=1

33 | P a g e

Research Institute (IRRI), International Water Management Institute (IWMI), World Agroforestry

Centre (ICRAF), and WorldFish.49

49 CGIAR, “Research Centres,” Accessed on March 3, 2015 at http://www.cgiar.org/cgiar-consortium/research-centers/

34 | P a g e

3.6. GULF OF MEXICO RESEARCH INITIATIVE (GOMRI)

3.6.1 MISSION

The ultimate goal of GoMRI will be “to improve

society’s ability to understand, respond to and mitigate

the impacts of petroleum pollution and related

stressors of the marine and coastal ecosystems, with an

emphasis on conditions found in the Gulf of Mexico.

Knowledge accrued will be applied to restoration and

to improving the long-term environmental health of

the Gulf of Mexico.”50

The mission of the GoMRI is “to implement an independent research program that will (1) study

the effects of the Deepwater Horizon incident and the potential associated impact of this and similar

incidents on the environment and public health; and, (2) develop improvements for spill mitigation,

oil detection and characterization, and advanced remediation technologies.”51

3.6.2 RESEARCH PRIORITIES

GoMRI research priorities will address the following five themes and research activities involve

sampling, modeling and studies (not acquisition or construction of infrastructure such as ships or

laboratories):

1. “Physical distribution, dispersion, and dilution of petroleum (oil and gas), its constituents,

and associated contaminants (e.g., dispersants) under the action of physical oceanographic

processes, air–sea interactions, and tropical storms;

2. Chemical evolution and biological degradation of the petroleum/dispersant systems and

subsequent interaction with coastal, open-ocean, and deep-water ecosystems;

3. Environmental effects of the petroleum/dispersant system on the sea floor, water column,

coastal waters, beach sediments, wetlands, marshes, and organisms; and the science of

ecosystem recovery;

4. Technology developments for improved response, mitigation, detection, characterization,

and remediation associated with oil spills and gas releases; and

5. Impact of oil spills on public health including behavioral, socioeconomic, environmental risk

assessment, community capacity and other population health considerations and issues.”52

50 GoMRI, “GoMRI Mission,” at http://gulfresearchinitiative.org/about-gomri/gri-mission/ 51 GoMRI, “General PowerPoint Presentation for GoMRI,” April 2012. 52 GoMRI, “General PowerPoint Presentation for GoMRI,” April 2012.

GoMRI is BP’s commitment to provide $500 million in funding over 10 years for independent scientific research related to the Deepwater Horizon incident in 2010.

35 | P a g e

3.6.3 YEAR ESTABLISHED

GoMRI was established on May 24, 2010 shortly after the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill through a

legal document called the Master Research Agreement.

3.6.4 FUNDING

BP committed up to $500 million over 10 years to fund an independent research program designed

to study the impact of the oil spill and its associated response on the environment and public health

in the Gulf of Mexico. GoMRI funding decisions are made in accordance with the National Science

Board peer evaluation protocols. Initial ‘fast-track’ research grants to establish critical baseline data

as the foundation for subsequent research include:53

$10 million to Louisiana State University

$10 million to the Florida Institute of Oceanography hosted by the University of South

Florida

$10 million to the Northern Gulf Institute, a consortium led by Mississippi State University

$5 million to the Alabama Marine Environmental Sciences Consortium

$10 million to the National Institutes of Health

For Program Years 2-4, a Request for Proposals was issued in April 2011 for large consortia and

eight awards were announced in August 2011. A total of $110 million over 3 years supports 8

Research consortia who will investigate the fate of petroleum in the environment, the impacts of

the spills and improving mitigation and restoration. The lead institutions for the selected consortia

are (1) The University of Texas at Austin, Marine Science Institute; (2) Texas A&M University at

College Station; (3) Florida State University; (4) Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium; (5)

University of South Florida; (6) University of Miami; (7) Tulane University; and (8) University of

Mississippi. Over six dozen institutions in twenty-seven U.S. states and five countries comprise the

research teams of these consortia.54

Additionally, a second Request for Proposals was released in December 2011 for proposals from

individual investigators or collaborative efforts involving a principal investigator (PI) and up to three

co-principal investigators (co-PIs) from no more than three additional institutions. Nineteen awards

were announced in August 2012 worth $18.5 million.55

Lastly, a total of $1.5 million in bridge grants were awarded to ensure continuity of observations

and sampling while the peer-review process was underway for the GoMRI three year RFP-I

proposals. These grants supported the time-sensitive acquisition of critical samples and

observations associated with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on the Gulf of Mexico. The funding

53 GoMRI, “General FAQs,” Accessed February 4, 2015 at http://gulfresearchinitiative.org/about-gomri/faqs/ 54 GoMRI, “RFP-I: Consortia Grants,” Accessed February 4, 2015 at http://research.gulfresearchinitiative.org/research-awards/rfpi-consortium-grants/ 55 GoMRI, “RFP-II: Investigator Grants,” Accessed February 5, 2015 at http://research.gulfresearchinitiative.org/research-awards/rfpii-investigator-grants/

36 | P a g e

supported work from July 1 to November 30, 2011. Seventeen grants were awarded to thirteen

institutions.56

3.6.5 GOVERNANCE

The Research Board, established by the Master Research Agreement,57 is an independent and

academic board of 20 individuals with scientific, public health, or administration expertise and is

chaired by Dr. Rita Colwell. It is responsible for proposal funding selection. Funds are distributed

using the practice of merit review by peer evaluation as described in the 2005 Report of the National

Science Board.58 Individual researchers will comply with professional standards as laid out in the

National Academy of Sciences Publication – On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research

(2009). Figure 12 below illustrates the organization chart.

FIGURE 12 – GOMRI ORGANIZATION CHART59

56 GoMRI, “RFP-III: Bridge Grants,” Accessed February 5, 2015 at http://research.gulfresearchinitiative.org/research-awards/rfpiii-bridge-grants/ 57 GoMRI, “Master Research Agreement,” Accessed February 5, 2015 at http://gulfresearchinitiative.org/about-gomri/master-research-agreement/ 58 National Science Board, “Report of the National Science Board on the National Science Foundation’s Merit Review System,” (2005) NBS-05-119 at http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/2005/nsb05119.pdf 59 GoMRI, “General PowerPoint Presentation for GoMRI,” April 2012.

37 | P a g e

3.6.6 MEMBERS

GoMRI participants are university-based scientists (1,260 scientists, 169 post-docs, and 688

graduate students) working on the 214 projects, representing over 100 universities (see footnote

60 below for a full list).60 International participants include but are not limited to SINTEF (Norway),

University of Copenhagen (Natural History Museum of Denmark), and the University of Calgary.

60 GoMRI, “Overview Brochure,” Accessed on February 5 2015 at http://gulfresearchinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/2012_Update_GoMRI_Brochure.pdf

38 | P a g e

3.7. HELMHOLTZ ASSOCIATION

3.7.1 MISSION

The Helmholtz Association mission

is “to help solve the major and

pressing problems of humanity.

The goal as a research

organization is to identify

important long-term challenges

early on and to develop the

knowledge and technologies

necessary to meet them.” 61

Helmholtz Association researchers

have access to large-scale facilities and scientific infrastructure, and cooperate closely with national

and international partners. Helmholtz uses three instruments to achieve shared goals: (1) centre-

embracing, programme-oriented funding, (2) the development and operation of complex

infrastructures and unique large-scale facilities, and (3) the Helmholtz President's Initiative and

Networking Fund.62

3.7.2 RESEARCH PRIORITIES

Helmholtz scientists work in six, centre-overlapping research fields financed within the framework

of programme-oriented funding:

1. Energy

2. Earth and Environment

3. Health

4. Aeronautics, space and transport

5. Key technologies

6. Structure of matter.63

3.10.3 YEAR ESTABLISHED

Helmholtz has a long history, beginning in 1995 when the Arbeitsgemeinschaft der

Großforschungseinrichtungen (AGF, a syndicate of large-scale research institutes) became the

Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres. Since then, recommendations on major issues

relating to content and structure, such as the practice of appointing professors jointly with

61 Helmholtz Association, “Annual Report 2013,” Accessed February 10, 2015 at http://www.helmholtz.de/fileadmin/user_upload/2013_AnnualReport_HelmholtzAssoication_EN_web.pdf 62 Helmholtz Association, “About us – Joint Initiative for Innovation and Research,” Accessed on February 10, 2015 at http://www.helmholtz.de/en/about_us/joint_initiative_for_innovation_and_research/ 63 Helmholtz Association, “About us – Mission,” Accessed on February 10, 2015 at http://www.helmholtz.de/en/about_us/mission/

The Helmholtz Association is Germany’s

largest scientific organization dedicated to pursuing the long-term research goals of state and society; with 18 scientific-technical and biological-medical research centres categorized into six strategic research fields.

39 | P a g e

universities, principles of the appraisal procedure and research priorities led to various

transformations. A significant restructuring of Helmholtz occurred in 2001 when the loose affiliation

of research institutes transformed into a registered association with legally binding member

centres. The reform reoriented research efforts towards strategic goals through the introduction of

programme-oriented advancement of funding (a switch from centre-oriented financing), whereby

each centre administered its own budget, to superordinate financing at the level of the Association.

In addition, the reform gave the Association a full-time president.64

3.7.4 FUNDING

The Helmholtz Association has an annual budget of almost €4 billion. A good two thirds of this

funding comes from public sponsors (in a 9:1 split between Federal and state authorities). Note that

the individual Helmholtz Centres are responsible for attracting more than 30% themselves in the

form of contract funding provided by public and private sector sponsors.65 In addition, the Initiative

and Networking Fund accounts for 3% of the overall budget and is used as a tool by the President

to set strategic priorities, to promote scientific excellence and advance research in key fields with

the required critical mass.

3.7.5 GOVERNANCE

Figure 13 illustrates the Helmholtz Association governance structure. The 18 Research Centres are

legally independent bodies. A full-time President heads the Helmholtz Association and moderates

dialogue between science, industry and government, is responsible for preparing and implementing

the Senate’s recommendations regarding programme-oriented funding, and coordinates

programme development across the research fields. The President is supported, advised and

represented by Vice-Presidents (8) and a Managing Director. The Head Office, together with

international offices in Brussels, Moscow and Beijing assist the President and Presidential

Committees in fulfilling their duties.

The central decision-making bodies at the Helmholtz Association are (1) the Assembly of Members,

made up of the directors of the Helmholtz Centres (i.e. internal), and (2) the Senate, including

representatives of Federal and Länder government, as well as representatives of science and

research, business and industry, and other research organisations (elected for three year terms).

The Senate commissions the evaluation of research programmes by independent, internationally-

acknowledged experts and receives their review reports. These evaluations serve as a basis for the

funding recommendations which the Senate makes to the association's financial sponsors i.e.

Federal and Länder government on how much support funding the individual research programmes

and core topic areas will receive.

64 Helmholtz Association, “About us – History,” Accessed on February 10, 2015 at http://www.helmholtz.de/en/about_us/history/history_of_the_helmholtz_association/ 65 Helmholtz Association, “About us – Facts and Figures,” Accessed on February 10, 2015 at http://www.helmholtz.de/en/about_us/facts_and_figures/

40 | P a g e

FIGURE 13 – HELMHOLTZ ASSOCIATION’S GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE

3.7.6 MEMBERS

The 18 Research Centres are members of the Helmholtz Association including:66

1. Alfred Wegener Institute Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research

2. Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron DESY

3. German Cancer Research Center

4. German Centre for Neurodegenerative Diseases

5. German Aerospace Center

6. Forschungszentrum Jülich

7. Karlsruhe Institute of Technology

8. GSI Helmholtz Centre for Heavy Ion Research

9. Helmholtz-Zentrum Berlin für Materialien und Energie

10. Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf

11. Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ

12. Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research

13. GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel

14. Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht - Centre for Materials and Coastal Research

15. Helmholtz Zentrum München – German Research Center for Environmental Health

16. Helmholtz Centre Potsdam GFZ, German Research Centre for Geosciences

17. Max Delbrueck Center for Molecular Medicine (MDC) Berlin-Buch

18. Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (associated)

66 Helmholtz Association, “About us – Assembly of Members,” Accessed on February 10, 2015 at http://www.helmholtz.de/en/about_us/assembly_of_members/

41 | P a g e

As illustrated in Figure 14 below, the centres are located throughout Germany.

FIGURE 14 – HELMHOLTZ CENTRES

42 | P a g e

3.8. INTERAGENCY ARCTIC RESEARCH POLICY COMMITTEE (IARPC) COLLABORATIONS

3.8.1 MISSION

With respect to research, the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee (IARPC) will:

“Meet national security and homeland security needs relevant to the Arctic region;

Protect the Arctic environment and conserve its biological resources;

Ensure environmentally sustainable natural resource management and economic

development in the region;

Strengthen institutional cooperation among the eight Arctic nations (the United States,

Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, the Russian Federation, and Sweden);

Involve the Arctic’s indigenous communities in decisions that affect them; and

Enhance scientific monitoring of and research on local, regional and global environmental

issues.” 67

IARPC Collaborations is the structure created by the IARPC to implement its 5-year research plan

and is organized around twelve topical Collaboration

Teams.

3.8.2 RESEARCH PRIORITIES

Released in February 2013, the Arctic Research Plan

2013-2017 advances research in areas of common

interest to IARPC agencies. The five-year plan was

drafted with contributions from all IARPC agencies and

was then reviewed by the public (academic community,

non-governmental organizations and industry). It does

not encompass all Federal Arctic research activity that

will occur over the next five years, but rather identifies areas for multiple agency participation.

Research areas where interagency cooperation will strengthen and enhance ongoing research

efforts include:68

1. Sea ice and marine ecosystems

2. Terrestrial ice and ecosystems

3. Atmospheric studies of surface heat,

energy, and mass balances

67 Brendan P. Kelly, and Nikoosh Carlo, “IARPC Collaborations: Introduction and Background,” Accessed on February 12, 2015 at http://www.iarpccollaborations.org/plan/introduction-and-background.html 68 IARPC, “Arctic Research Plan FY2013-2017,” February 2013. Accessed on February 12, 2015 at http://www.iarpccollaborations.org/plan/index.html

4. Observing systems

5. Regional climate models

6. Adaptation tools for sustaining communities

7. Human health

The IARPC develops national US Arctic

research policy and five-year

implementation plans. Established by

Congress (1984), the IARPC is comprised

of 14 Federal government bodies, and is

chaired by the National Science

Foundation.

43 | P a g e

3.8.3 YEAR ESTABLISHED

The IARPC was established in 1984 under Section 7 of Executive Order 12501 on Arctic Research.69

3.8.4 FUNDING

Funding for the IARPC Collaboration staff (including a full time executive secretary, a content

manager for the online platform, and half of the implementation scientist) comes from the lead

agency, the National Science Foundation (NSF). The NSF also supported the development of the

online platform. The funding is currently in the third year of a three year commitment. Interviewee

Dr. Sandy Stackweather, IARPC Collaboration implementation scientist, anticipates that the funding

will be renewed and continued.

3.8.5 GOVERNANCE

IARPC is chaired by the director of the National Science Foundation, Dr. France A. Cordova, and

consists of principal representatives from 14 Federal agencies, departments and offices. The IARPC

staff meet monthly and the Principals meet twice per year. In 2010, recognizing the increasing

participation of multiple agencies in Arctic research, President Obama directed the IARPC to be

established as an Interagency Working Group of the National Science and Technology Committee

(NSTC) Committee on Environment, Natural Resources and Sustainability (CENRS).70 According to

interviewee Dr. Stackweather, this resulted in lining up the leadership (see Section 4.2.1 on the

Strength of clear and strong leadership).

3.8.6 MEMBERS

IARPC is comprised of fourteen (14) Federal entities, each with research responsibilities in the

Arctic: Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of Defense, Department

of Energy, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Homeland Security (U.S.

Coast Guard), Department of Interior, Department of State, Department of Transportation,

Environmental Protection Agency, Marine Mammal Commission, National Aeronautics and Space

Administration, National Science Foundation (chair), and the Smithsonian Institution.71 Note that

IARPC also cooperates with the State of Alaska, indigenous organizations, academic institutions,

non-governmental organizations, the Arctic Council and International Partners.

69 National Archives, “Executive Order 12501 – Arctic Research,” Accessed on February 12, 2015 at http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12501.html 70 Whitehouse, “Office of Science and Technology Policy: NSTC Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability,” Accessed on February 12, 2015 at http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/nstc/committees/cenrs 71 IARPC, “IARPC Overview 2014,” Accessed on February 12, 2015 at http://www.iarpccollaborations.org/uploads/cms/documents/iarpc_overview_20141211.pdf

44 | P a g e

3.9. THE JOINT PROGRAMMING INITIATIVE ON AGRICULTURE, FOOD SECURITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE (FACCE-JPI)

3.9.1 MISSION

The Joint Programming Initiative on Agriculture,

Food Security and Climate Change’s (FACCE-JPI)

mission is “to achieve, support and promote

integration, alignment and joint implementation

of national resources under a common research

and innovation strategy to address the diverse

challenges in agriculture, food security and

climate change.”72 The vision for FACCE-JPI is “an

integrated European Research Area addressing

the challenges of Agriculture, Food Security and Climate Change to achieve sustainable growth in

agricultural production to meet increasing world food demand and contributing to sustainable

economic growth and a European bio-based economy while maintaining and restoring ecosystem

services under current and future climate change.”73 FACCE-JPI was described by Ms. McKhann,

(Secretariat at FACCE-JPI) as a three stage process: (1) Development of a Common Vision with long

term objectives, (2) Translate it into a Strategic Research Agenda (SRA), and (3) SRA

implementation.

3.9.2 RESEARCH PRIORITIES

Released on 5 December 2012, the Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) was designed as a research

and innovation roadmap, steering FACCE-JPI activities for the future. It provides a framework for

the alignment of existing programmes and joint research efforts. The SRA process included an

analysis of current and future national research programmes through a series of mapping and

foresight meetings on research themes previously defined, and by the regular input of stakeholders,

see Section 3.9.5 below. The SRA defines the following five core research themes and outlines short-

, medium- and long-term research priorities as well as joint actions for each of these core themes:

1. “Sustainable food security in the context of climate change 2. Environmentally sustainable growth and intensification of agricultural systems under

current and future climate and resource availability 3. Assessing and reducing trade-offs between food production, biodiversity and other

ecosystem services 4. Adaptation to climate change throughout the food production chain

72 FACCE-JPI, “Strategic Research Agenda,” 2012. Accessed on February 19, 2015 at https://www.faccejpi.com/faccejpi/Strategic-Research-Agenda 73 FACCE-JPI, “Strategic Research Agenda,” 2012. Accessed on February 19, 2015 at https://www.faccejpi.com/faccejpi/Strategic-Research-Agenda

FACCE-JPI brings together 21 countries

who are committed to addressing interconnected challenges of sustainable agriculture, food security, and impacts of climate change.

45 | P a g e

5. Greenhouse gas mitigation, carbon sequestration and fossil-fuel substitution in the agriculture, forestry and land use sector.”74

3.9.3 YEAR ESTABLISHED

The European Council launched FACCE-JPI in October 2010 as one of the first Joint Programming

Initiatives. The initiative is guided by two main priorities: “(1) Foster collaboration among national

research actors to work toward alignment of research programming… the challenges of food

security, climate change, and depletion of resources are so important that they cannot be

addressed at the national level alone. Even if the work in different countries gives rise to numerous

advances, it is imperative to establish a genuine European coordination around a common vision

and shared objectives and instruments. (2) Develop innovation at the service of society. Marked by

strong transdisciplinarity, the work carried out in this initiative involves stakeholders so as to be

able to also address the economic and social issues, without being limited to the purely scientific

ones. Thus it will foster a truly dynamic innovation that will benefit society as a whole, beyond the

academic and the agricultural world.”75

3.9.4 FUNDING

Ms. McKhann stated that FACCE-JPI funding can be broken down into three components: (1)

Administrative costs which are high because the initiative has been operating for a short time. The

administrative costs are covered by the European Commission, initially with €2 million over 3 years,

and now €2 million over 5 years. (2) Research actions that are co-funded between the member

countries and the European Commission. For example, the FACCE-JPI MACSUR Knowledge Hub,

bringing together 67 research groups from 17 countries, started in 2012 with an estimated budget

of €15 million. Of the five current research actions (and one in the starting block), Ms. McKhann

estimated that each has €10 to €20 million over 3 years. (3) In-kind funding such as Governing Board

members travel to meetings at their own expense.

3.9.5 GOVERNANCE

FACCE-JPI governance includes a Governing Board (the decision making body of the JPI and

comprised of up to two representatives from the 21 countries) and a Scientific Advisory Board

(providing high-level scientific input to the JPI). In addition, a Stakeholder Advisory Board includes

representation of civil society (NGOs and consumers), farmer organizations, industries,

administration and European and International programmes/initiatives allowing them to

participate in the development of JPI including input on the Strategic Research Agenda, priority

actions and their implementation. Examples of FACCE-JPI Stakeholder Advisory Board members

include the Climate Action Network (NGO), COPA-COGECA (represents European farmers and

74 FACCE-JPI, “Strategic Research Agenda,” 2012. Accessed on February 19, 2015 at https://www.faccejpi.com/faccejpi/Strategic-Research-Agenda 75 FACCE-JPI, “Strategic Research Agenda,” 2012. Accessed on February 19, 2015 at https://www.faccejpi.com/faccejpi/Strategic-Research-Agenda

46 | P a g e

agricooperatives), the European Initiative for Sustainable Development in Agriculture (an alliance

of national agricultural associations).76 Finally, the Secretariat oversees all management aspects

across the FACCE-JPI to ensure its durability, continuity and flexibility, see Figure 15.

FIGURE 15 – FACCE-JPI PERMANENT GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE77

3.9.6 MEMBERS

FAACE-JPI brings together 21 countries: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark,

Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania,

Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and the UK.

76 FACCE-JPI, “Stakeholder Advisory Board Members,” Accessed March 24 at https://www.faccejpi.com/faccejpi/About-Us/Stakeholder-Advisory-Board/StAB-members 77 FACCE-JPI, “General Presentation JPI Agriculture, Food Security and Climate Change,” May 2013 at https://www.faccejpi.com/faccejpi/Document-library/Presentation-of-FACCE-JPI

Governing Board

•FACCE-JPI Decision-Making body

•Communication with national actors

•Working Groups 1 Chair, 2 Vice-Chairs

•Meetings 3/year

•€5,000 entry fee

Stakeholder Advisory Board

•Advice on strategic documents and on joint actions

•22 member organizations

•1 Chair + 3 Vice-Chairs

•Meetings > 2/year

Scientific Advisory Board

•Scientific Advice, SRA, identification, evaluation of JPI activities

•12 high-level experts

•1 Chair + 1 Vice-Chair

•Meetings > 2/year

Secretariat Executive body:

proposes strategy, management, JPI

coherence, and links with ERA-NETS for implementation

47 | P a g e

3.10. THE NATIONAL CENTRE FOR OCEAN FORECASTING (NCOF)

3.10.1 MISSION

The National Centre for Ocean

Forecasting (NCOF) mission is “to

establish ocean forecasting as part

of the national infrastructure,

based on world-class research and

development.”78 The purpose is to

provide scientific information and

forecasts to improve:

“Response to search and rescue and oil slicks

Management of water quality, ecosystem and fisheries

Tactical edge for defence

Support for oil exploration and wind farms

Extreme wave forecasts for shipping

Warnings of coastal flooding (including risk of tsunamis)

Monitoring and understanding of ocean climate

Weather forecasts (hurricanes, severe storms, coastal fog).”79

NCOF vision is “to enable joined-up research, development, operational production and

exploitation of ocean forecasts for a wide range of purposes.” 80 NCOF builds on existing

collaborations which bring together the operational forecasting capabilities of the Met Office with

the world-class underpinning research carried out by a number of the UK’s leading marine and

oceanographic research centres, much of which is funded through the Natural Environment

Research Council (NERC). According to interviewee Dr. de Mora (NCOF Chairman), following a

significant meeting of the governing bodies in November 2014, NCOF will be drafting a new strategy

with an expanded mandate and under a new name: the National Partnership for Ocean

Predictions.81

78 The National Centre for Ocean Forecasting, “NCOF Overview (2011),” Accessed on February 22, 2015 at http://www.ncof.co.uk/modules/documents/documents/NCOF%20Overview%202011.pdf 79 The National Centre for Ocean Forecasting, “NCOF Overview (2011),” Accessed on February 22, 2015 at http://www.ncof.co.uk/modules/documents/documents/NCOF%20Overview%202011.pdf 80 The National Centre for Ocean Forecasting, “NCOF Overview (2011),” Accessed on February 22, 2015 at http://www.ncof.co.uk/modules/documents/documents/NCOF%20Overview%202011.pdf 81 Interview Transcript with Professor Stephen de Mora on February 26, 2015.

NCOF is a consortium agreement between the

Met Office, Plymouth Marine Laboratory, CEFAS, and the National Oceanography Centre. NCOF draws on the expertise of these institutions in order to provide a UK centre of excellence for operational oceanography.

48 | P a g e

3.10.2 RESEARCH PRIORITIES

The following working groups addressing specific research areas has been set up (note that NCOF

working groups are chaired by individuals from the member organizations):82

1. NEMO Shelf (physical)

2. Global NEMO Development

3. Ecosystems

4. Surface Waves

5. Observational data sets: gaps and requirements

6. Metrics/validation methodologies

7. Ocean Data Assimilation

8. Shelf Seas Climate Impact

3.10.3 YEAR ESTABLISHED

The NCOF was formed in March 2004 to improve the pull-through of first-class research into

operations at the Met Office and to facilitate the exploration of ocean forecasting systems and

products by a wider range of government, academic and commercial agencies.83

3.10.4 FUNDING

Dr. de Mora clarified that NCOF has no funding for operations or for research projects. The funding

for NCOF conferences (held approximately every 2 to 3 years) are from in-kind contributions from

members. Funding is accessed by collaboratively responding to funding proposals from the EU, such

as Framework 7 and/or Horizon 2020.

3.10.5 GOVERNANCE

NCOF Governing Board includes Chairman Stephen de Mora (Chief Executive, PML) that meet once

a year. The Executive Committee is chaired by the Met Office and meets 3 times a year. The role of

the Executive Committee is to set the strategic research areas, which then goes to the Governing

Board for approval. Note that Professor de Mora indicated during the interview that there is a

relaxed attitude towards the governing structure of NCOF. Before he joined as Chairman, the

Executive Committee acted without any guidance from the Governing Board. He has since worked

on strengthening the link between the two governance structures.

82 The National Centre for Ocean Forecasting, “NCOF Working Groups,” Accessed on February 22, 2015 at http://www.ncof.co.uk/Working-Groups.html 83 NCOF, “NCOF Strategy 2011,” Accessed on February 22, 2015 at http://www.ncof.co.uk/modules/documents/documents/NCOF_Strategy_2011_v1%201.pdf

49 | P a g e

3.10.6 MEMBERS

There are four members of NCOF including the Met Office, Plymouth Marine Laboratory (PML),

Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), and the National

Oceanography Centre. NCOF members are all located in England (i.e. nationally) and overall, are

government/public sector organizations with the exception of PML, which is an independent

collaborative research centre. The members have the world-class expertise in marine modelling,

marine observations, and their combination, essential for the validation and improvement of

marine predictions from days to decades ahead.

50 | P a g e

4. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

4.1 TRENDS

This section outlines the trends identified as a result of online research and interview findings,

including: ICT as a tool to facilitate coordination and collaboration, open access to research findings

and publications, increased external communication efforts through a variety of methods, and the

collection of key metrics of activities and outcomes.

4.1.1 ICT AS A TOOL TO FACILITATE COORDINATION AND COLLABORATION

The main (and unique) best practice on facilitating coordination and collaboration using information

and communications technology (ICT) is the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee (IARPC)

Collaboration’s online platform. It was created in an effort to increase transparency and facilitate

collaboration. The platform supports the 12 Collaboration Teams’ efforts as identified in the five-

year plan for Arctic research. According to interviewee Dr. Starkweather (IARPC Implementation

Scientist), it has been describes as the ‘coffee break at a science meet’ seeing as individuals do not

know who they will meet or what they will find on the website. Launched in November 2014, IARPC

Collaboration’s online platform called ‘Member Space’ has the following features:

“Updates from you and your colleagues – read what others are working on or thinking –

filtered by your areas of interest. Then contribute your own calls for proposals or new

projects, research progress, recently released reports, or great thoughts;

Up to date address book – find individuals and teams, read detailed profiles, including contact

information and what people are working on. And invite others who you think should be

participating;

Comprehensive calendar – look for upcoming events or find meeting notes and presentations

from events you attended or missed;

Easy to find documents – searchable by title, topic, team, person or date; and

Wants/Haves bulletin board – sharing resources to do more with less.” 84

Members are able to comment on all the above features and these comment boards remain online

and are available for anyone to read. This gives the online community members the ability to look

back at any conversation at a later date. Dr. Starkweather stated that in some cases, interesting

dialogues have emerged on these comment boards.

Individuals are welcome to request an account if they feel that they can contribute to the effort of

Arctic research. While membership is subject to approval and adherence to the codes of conduct,

Dr. Starkweather indicated that the bar is set low in order to on-board participants. To date, there

are over 500 individuals signed up. Members can be grouped as either passive ‘listeners,’ or active

84 IARPC Collaborations, “Member Space,” Accessed on February 12, 2015 at http://www.iarpccollaborations.org/explore.html

51 | P a g e

‘champions’ who post regularly. Dr. Starkweather suggested that passive members who use the

platform to ‘listen’ also serve a purpose even if it is as a newsfeed of sorts. Also note that Dr.

Starkweather indicated that the IARPC Collaborations is discussing the possibility of giving members

the ability to form self-organized groups.

On a separate note, the progress in the ICT space has facilitated and supported key research

projects. In particular, BalticSTERN’s head Secretariat, Ms. Ericsdotter indicated that a similar

project could not have been done just 10 years ago due to computing limitations.

4.1.2 PUBLIC ACCESS TO RESEARCH OUTPUTS

There was a trend among the research networks examined to make research outputs available to

the public. For example, the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystem Cooperative Research Centre (ACE

CRC) makes available on its website all research outputs including formal journal articles, and

public-ready documents. They have stated that: “As a ‘public good’ cooperative research centre,

the ACE CRC aims to make its research outputs widely and freely available.” 85 ACE CRC also provides

access to data via means such as the sea-level rise webtool.86 Much of the scientific data collected

is available through the Australian Antarctic Data Centre at the AAD, the Integrated Marine

Observing System (IMOS) and the TPAC.

The Arctic Oil Spill Response Technology Joint Industry Programme (JIP) emphasizes the importance

of making all information shared and published. The JIP accordingly makes research project findings

available either in peer reviewed journals or within the JIP website and general materials for the

benefit of other researchers, the oil spill technology community, the wider industry, governmental

and other stakeholders.87 There are currently 9 research reports featured on their website.

The Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative (GoMRI)-funded researchers are strongly encouraged to

publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals. In fact, the Master Research Agreement includes

provisions that all scientific studies and associated data collected or generated through the

agreement must be made available to the public in a timely manner.88 There are two vehicles for

this: first, a data management system called the “Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative Information

and Data Cooperative” (GRIIDC) which stores and shares data from diverse fields of study including

biology, chemistry, physiological oceanography and more.89 Chief Science Officer, Dr. Chuck Wilson

stated that the portal is robust and growing rapidly: 646 datasets, from 250 institutions, on 214

85 ACE CRC, “2013-2014 Annual Report,” Accessed on February 19, 2015 at http://www.acecrc.org.au/access/repository/resource/b1e25166-ba80-1032-820a-40404adc5e91/ACE%20CRC%20Annual%20Report%202013-2014.pdf 86 ACE CRC, “Canute – The Sea Level Calculator,” Accessed on February 19, 2015 at http://canute2.sealevelrise.info/ 87 Arctic Response Technology, “Responsible Approach,” Accessed on February 16, 2015 at http://www.arcticresponsetechnology.org/responsible-approach 88 Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative, “Master Research Agreement,” 14 March 2014 at http://gulfresearchinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/Annotated-GoMRI-Master-Research-Agreement-2.pdf 89 Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative, “Information and Data Cooperative,” at https://data.gulfresearchinitiative.org/

52 | P a g e

projects and featuring 2,751 researchers. The second vehicle is the “Research Information System”

or RIS for all information about GoMRI funded projects, people, institutions and publications

(includes a search function). 90 Given the scale of research activities, this portal is key to

understanding the variety of GoMRI projects and all related components.

IARPC Collaborations takes a different approach, by facilitating the sharing of research publications

through their online platform rather than using a data portal. One reason for this is that each federal

agency member has a distinct approach to sharing data. Dr. Starkweather clarified that the IARPC

Collaborations helps landscape research activities on the Arctic and creates linkages. The IARPC

Collaborations made the decision not to create a new and comprehensive data portal for Arctic

research, in order to avoid undermining existing data portals such as data.gov and others.

4.1.3 INCREASED EXTERNAL COMMUNICATION EFFORTS AND METHODS

Related to the trend of improving public access to research outputs, a number of the research

networks are involved in a variety of external communication efforts. For example, ACE CRC

provides publications targeted to Government policy-makers and planners as well as the wider

community (termed ‘end-user’) about the current state of knowledge and what it suggests for the

future. The Antarctic Sea Ice and Climate Change 2014 Position Analysis launched on 11 March

201491 had three purposes: to inform the Australian governments and the community about ACE

CRC’s current state of knowledge about the Antarctic sea ice; outline how sea ice influences, and

responds to, global climate variability and change; and identify issues for consideration in policy

development. ACE CRC also held a roundtable briefing in Canberra on August 2013 that summarized

the latest research, including the above mentioned position analysis.92

Another example of external communication efforts includes the BalticSTERN Secretariat’s task to

compile a synthesis report based on research results which was directed to decision-makers.93 The

report “The Baltic Sea – Our Common Treasure. Economics of Saving the Sea,” was published in

March 2013 and was then furthermore presented at the European Parliament in September 2013.94

90 Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative, “GoMRI Research Program,” at http://research.gulfresearchinitiative.org/ 91 ACE CRC, “Position Analysis: Antarctic Sea Ice and Climate Change 2014,” 11 March 2014 at http://www.acecrc.org.au/access/repository/resource/029c6e3e-fa29-1031-820a-40404adc5e91 92 ACE CRC, “2013-2014 Annual Report,” Accessed on February 19, 2015 at http://www.acecrc.org.au/access/repository/resource/b1e25166-ba80-1032-820a-40404adc5e91/ACE%20CRC%20Annual%20Report%202013-2014.pdf 93 BalticSTERN Secretariat, “The Baltic Sea – Our Common Treasure: Economics of Saving the Sea,” 2013. Accessed on February 3, 2015 at http://www.stockholmresilience.org/download/18.4531be2013cd58e844853b/1381790136604/BalticSTERN_The+Baltic+Sea+-+Our+Common+Treasure.+Economics+of+Saving+the+Sea_0314.pdf 94 BalticSTERN, “Seminar Flyer: The Baltic Sea – Our Common Treasure. Economics of Saving the Sea,” at http://www.stockholmresilience.org/download/18.416c425f13e06f977b14a79/1381790134164/BalticSTERN_EU+Parliament_4+September+2013_25June.pdf

53 | P a g e

A unique communication method includes GoMRI’s current development of a documentary which

was described as by interviewees as “exciting and easy to grasp, and told in a compelling way (both

visually and through the narrative).” GoMRI released a Request for Proposals for the creation of the

documentary on 22 February 2014. The goal of the documentary is “to provide a sense of place,

appeal to the public’s understanding of science, encourage long-term support for protecting

resources in this region, and support science literacy.”95 The target audience for the documentary

is a science-curious public with an 8th grade level of science understanding. ACE CRC also has a

number of brief videos that are available on Vimeo such as one featuring Dr. Steve Rintoul on the

value of the ACE CRC partnership.96

4.1.4 COLLECTION OF KEY METRICS OF ACTIVITIES AND OUTCOMES

The majority of research networks collected metrics of their activities, impacts and outcomes. For

example, in light of their 40th anniversary the Consultative Group for International Agricultural

Research (CGIAR) released an impact report that featured impact metrics such as “for every $1

invested in CGIAR research, $9 worth of additional food is produced in the developing world.”97

For some research networks, including ACE CRC, metric collection is a requirement for funding. For

the most recent funding period (from 2010 to 2014), ACE CRC researchers published “408 peer-

reviewed scientific papers, including 15 in the prestigious family of Nature and Science journals.”98

ACE CRC’s CEO Dr. Worby also pointed to metrics around ACE CRC’s impact of education and

training for example with 33 students awarded PhD degrees between 2010 and 2014. Interestingly,

ACE CRC reports on the employment activities of these students after graduation. Lastly, metrics

are collected around end-user engagement with a total of 78 publications/reports written for end-

users between 2010 and 2014.

Alternatively, a component of metric collection at GoMRI is for internal purposes, namely for the

Research Board and management team. The “GoMRI Administrative Dashboard” is a collection of

comprehensive metrics, on nearly a real-time basis that allows users to slice data in a multitude of

ways. Metrics collected include (but is not limited to) total publications by type (journal articles,

presentations books, or book chapters), total publications and presentations by funding source,

journal article status by funding source, total articles by theme (physical, chemical, environment,

technology, and public health), publication journals, total projects by funding source, project status

by funding source (active versus completed), people by funding source, scientists by funding source,

95 Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative, “Request for Proposals for Creation of a Documentary,” 22 February 2014 at http://gulfresearchinitiative.org/request-proposals-creation-documentary/ 96 Dr. Steve Rintoul, “The Value of the ACE Partnership,” Vimeo. 2012. Accessed on February 12, 2015 at https://vimeo.com/25223077 97 CGIAR, “The CGIAR at 40 and Beyond: Impact that Matter for the Poor and the Planet,” at http://library.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10947/2549/cgiar%4040_final_LOWRES.pdf?sequence=1 98 ACE CRC, “Exit Report 2010-2014,” Accessed on February 12, 2015 at http://www.acecrc.org.au/access/repository/resource/b22b6f76-ba81-1032-820a-40404adc5e91/ACE%20CRC%20Exit%20Report%202010-2014_FINAL.pdf

54 | P a g e

and graduate students by funding source. Dr. Chuck Wilson, Chief Scientific Officer at GoMRI

indicated that the data is useful when giving presentations to a variety of audiences. As such, there

was a desire to make the data “alive and flexible.”

It is worth noting however that Dr. Starkweather from IARPC Collaborations reported witnessing a

trend away from metrics to ‘storytelling.’ Similarly, Ms. McKhann from the Joint Programming

Initiative on Agriculture, Food Security and Climate Change (FACCE-JPI) reported that the

Stakeholder Advisory Board is concerned with whether FACCE-JPI has made a societal impact. She

noted that this question is challenging to measure and academic indicators such as number of

publications can be limiting and not comprehensive.

55 | P a g e

4.2 STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

4.2.1 STRENGTHS

FINDING THE ‘RIGHT’ PEOPLE

According to Jacob and Meek (2013), “Knowledge/research networks, national or international, are

as good as the individual scientists that constitute them, and it is not networks that collaborate,

write joint papers and undertake research, but the scientists themselves.”99 This importance of

people was echoed by Dr. Starkweather, who suggested that the ability of the IARPC to enhance

research in the Arctic was largely influenced and dependent on the right people. For example, a

group of researchers from IARPC Collaborations self-organized and made a proposal which has since

been awarded funding. This level of collaboration and coordination requires not only the IARPC to

bring these individuals together, but the right kind of people to advance the network objectives.

GoMRI also stated that communication between consortia and individual investigators is key. It is

critical to find the ‘right’ investigators. On a higher level, the management team was described as

key to the success of GoMRI.

CLEAR AND STRONG LEADERSHIP

Clear and strong organizational leadership is also a strength of a research network. For example,

from 1984 to 2011 the activities and effectiveness of the IARPC was described as ‘hit or miss’ based

on the strength of the leadership. In contrast, since 2011 the effectiveness of the IARPC improved

considerably in part as a result of the congressional mandate and power of the Whitehouse. The

strength of leadership is also important at an individual level, for example, both ACE CRC and

Helmholtz Association have a key individual that heads the research network (a CEO and a President

respectively).

MULTIDISCIPLINARITY OF RESEARCH

By the very nature of their research focus, many of the research networks included for the purposes

of this study emphasized the importance of multidisciplinary research.

IARPC Collaboration Teams are cross-pollinating topics in order to help achieve key milestones.

Many of the activities outlined in the 5-year plan involve establishing and enhancing inter-

institutional and interdisciplinary conversations. Harnessing this diverse talent requires broad

participation and, therefore, all meetings, unless otherwise noted, are open. In the case of

BalticSTERN, the purpose of the research was to combine ecological and economic models in order

to make a cost-benefit analysis and to identify cost-effective measures of reaching certain targets.

FACCE-JPI is striving for an increased multidisciplinary approach in order to tackle complex research

questions around agriculture, food security and climate change. The interviewee for FACCE-JPI, Ms.

99 Merle Jacob and V. Lynn Meek, “Scientific mobility and international research networks: trends and policy tools for promoting research excellence and capacity building,” Studies in Higher Education (2013), vol. 38, no. 3: page 340.

56 | P a g e

McKhann, emphasized its integration of not only technical issues but also socio-economic and policy

aspects. Note that a major knowledge objective for FACCE-JPI is the integration of a large range of

disciplines, including climatology, ecology, biology, agronomy, forestry, social sciences, and the

plant, soil and animal sciences. These will be strongly connected around a central pillar of agro-

ecological modelling. 100 While GoMRI is focused more narrowly on the impacts of petroleum

pollution, there are multiple aspects and disciplines of research involved in research activities

including physical distribution of the petroleum, chemical evolution, environmental effects,

technology developments, and public health.

FLEXIBILITY OF RESEARCH NETWORKS

There are two ways in which research networks demonstrate flexibility: on an ongoing basis

whereby research networks can react to the changing environment, and at scheduled intervals

whereby research networks go through an evaluation process.

Examples of flexibility include ACE CRC’s ability to bring on new partners to help achieve the

established research objectives. In contrast, once ACE CRC’s application for funds and scope of

research has been approved by government there is little to no flexibility to shift these research

priorities. Instead, changes can be proposed in five years’ time at a new funding round. Dr. Worby

from ACE CRC stated that while there have been adjustments throughout the history of the

program, overall the core activities have not changed significantly.

In addition, FACCE-JPI indicated that there is a large degree of flexibility required for the success of

the joint programming initiative, such as the Secretariat’s ability to respond to the various needs

voiced by the Governance Board. Ms. McKhann stated that FACCE-JPI is new and while they try to

professionalize some activities, most activities are done off hand. Note that the Strategic Research

Agenda is reviewed and updated every 2 years to respond to progress made in research.

REGULAR EVALUATION CYCLES

A majority of the research networks studied had a formal evaluation process either of the entire

organization, and/or of the strategic research agendas. The frequency of the evaluations varied

between 2 years and 5 years including:

IARPC research plan is revised every 5 years.

ACE CRC’s Exit Reports at end of each funding round. The Exit Report for 2010 – 2014

included an overview of impacts (e.g. publications, economic impacts, economic flow-on),

research activities of each theme, how ACE CRC contributed to Australia’s future research

workforce, and collaborations (e.g. international engagements).

FACCE-JPI’s Strategic Research Agenda is reviewed every 2 years. Also note that FACCE-JPI

developed and adopted a Monitoring and Evaluation Framework in October 2013. The

framework identified three targets: “(1) to improve the alignment of national and European

100 European Commission, “Research and Innovation – Bioeconomy: Joint Programming Initiative,” Accessed on February 23, 2015 at http://ec.europa.eu/research/bioeconomy/policy/coordination/jpi/index_en.htm

57 | P a g e

research programmes, (2) increase high quality transnational research activities within food

security, agriculture and climate change, and (3) improve the societal impacts on the

challenge of food security, agriculture and climate change.”101

NCOF has a 4 year cycle for research priority updates and they are in the process of an

update now.

4.2.2 WEAKNESS

A LACK OR AN UNCERTAINTY OF FUNDING

Some research networks noted the challenges of a lack and/or an uncertainty of access to funding.

In particular, NCOF has no funding for either administrative or research projects. Chairman Dr. de

Mora indicated that this has resulted in a limited collection of metrics, ad hoc processes and

ultimately, the NCOF brand and image have suffered.

While BalticSTERN was able to source financing for its activities, Ms. Ericsdotter indicated that the

lack of clear funding was a significant challenge for the Secretariat. The Secretariat did succeed in

piecing together funding from a variety of sources, including (but not limited to) the Finnish

Advisory Board of Sectoral Research, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, the Swedish

Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning, the Danish Strategic

Research Council and the Danish Baltic Nest Institute, and others.102

Dr. Worby from the ACE CRC indicated that long-term funding availability is a risk. To date, the

Australian Government has agreed that the ACE CRC is worth supporting however, there may be a

day when this changes. There are also funding pressures on a number of ACE CRC’s core partners

as a result of budget cuts that has reduced the ability of these agencies to carry out some functions.

ACE CRC has “accordingly identified this as a risk and has taken steps to minimize the impact of this

risk on ACE CRC activities.”103

It is worth noting that the IARPC Collaborations research activities are not funded but rather are

‘budget neutral.’ The administrative function (including the executive secretary, a content manager

and a portion of the implementation scientist roles) and the development of the online platform is

however supported by the National Science Foundation.

101 FACCE-JPI, “Evaluation and Monitoring of FACCE-JPI Activities,” at https://www.faccejpi.com/FACCE-Joint-activities/Evaluation-and-Monitoring-of-FACCE-JPI-activities 102 BalticSTERN Secretariat, “The Baltic Sea – Our Common Treasure: Economics of Saving the Sea,” 2013. Accessed on February 3, 2015 at http://www.stockholmresilience.org/download/18.4531be2013cd58e844853b/1381790136604/BalticSTERN_The+Baltic+Sea+-+Our+Common+Treasure.+Economics+of+Saving+the+Sea_0314.pdf 103 ACE CRC, “2013-2014 Annual Report,” Accessed on February 19, 2015 at http://www.acecrc.org.au/access/repository/resource/b1e25166-ba80-1032-820a-40404adc5e91/ACE%20CRC%20Annual%20Report%202013-2014.pdf

58 | P a g e

WEAK LINKS AND OVERSIZED GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES

There were two cases of governance challenges, for example NCOF Chairman Dr. de Mora stated

that before he joined, the Executive Committee acted without guidance from the Governing Board.

He has since worked on strengthening the link between these governance structures at NCOF.

In addition, FACCE-JPI’s Governing Board that is comprised of up to two representatives of the 21

countries participating in the JPI (roughly 30 people total). The representatives come from

ministries, research organizations, funding bodies, research councils, etc. and must have a written

governmental mandate and be nominated by the national Authority. As such, these individuals

were described by Ms. McKhann as ‘wearing multiple hats’ and she indicated that it can be

challenging to make decisions in a timely manner.

As a solution to the cumbersome governance structure at the FACCE-JPI, the Governing Board can

establish Working Groups on an ad hoc basis on specific issues in order to facilitate the

implementation of the JPI. The Working Group is a subset of the Governing Board, and comprised

of Governing Board members or appropriate appointed representatives and supported by the

Secretariat. The Working Group is temporary until the task is accomplished and each Working

Group presents their progress to the Governing Board on a regular basis.

CHALLENGE OF COLLABORATION WITH INDUSTRY PARTNERS

A weakness of some research networks is the challenge of collaborating with industry. A number of

industry partners are listed within the ACE CRC 2013-2014 annual report including Myriax Software

Pty Ltd, pitt&sherry, RPS MetOcean Pty Ltd, SGS Economics and Planning Pty Ltd. The inclusion of

industry partners underlines the increasing recognition of the potential commercial impacts of

climate change. However, Dr. Worby clarified that while the ACE CRC aspired to forge stronger links

between researchers and industry and to make scientific research outcomes relevant for SMEs, the

long-term nature of their research focus made this a challenge. He indicated that the industry

involvement was a funding requirement however the partnerships were not worth pursuing and

most have since been dissolved. The decline of industry involvement was a result of the weak

alignment between Antarctic climate research and industry activities. Dr. Worby gave the example

of pitt&sherry, a small engineering consulting firm and specialist on infrastructure who work on

projects that are typically 3 to 6 months in length; ACE CRC research on the other hand takes place

over 5 years or more. Similarly, NCOF Chairman Dr. de Mora stated that he has been trying to get

industry pull but has not yet succeeded in finding a mechanism for this.

59 | P a g e

4.3 BEST PRACTICES

This section focuses on best practices including setting research priorities, stakeholder engagement

and collaboration, and lastly, how to accelerate the pace of research.

4.3.1 SETTING RESEARCH PRIORITIES

The research networks examined for this study featured a variety of methods on establishing

research priorities. The main method for setting research priorities is to map current research

efforts on the topic of interest. For the development of the Strategic Research Agenda for example,

FACCE-JPI held a series of mapping meetings around core themes to identify current and future

national research programs. In particular, the mapping helped FACCE-JPI identify the following:

1. “Topics on which much research is being done in many JIP countries. These topics are of

interest for future alignment, joint actions or instruments.

2. Topics on which research is carried out in a small number of JIP countries. These latter are

topics for novel alignment activities (e.g. geographic, thematic).

3. Topics which are in the Strategic Research Agenda but on which there is little or no research.

These topics could give rise to new topics in Horizon 2020 as collective projects, joint calls or

ERA-NETs.

4. Emerging topics. FACCE-JPI will organize workshops, seminars or ideas labs to further explore

these topics.”104

After the mapping phase was complete, the FACCE-JPI held consultations with public stakeholders.

Input was collected through an online questionnaire and was used to validate and, in some cases,

expand the subjects to be addressed in the core themes and to highlight supporting activities

required by the JPI. In addition, stakeholder feedback was collected through the Stakeholder

Advisory Board. This process is described by FACCE-JPI as cyclical, whereby their future iterations

of the Strategic Research Agenda will follow this process and be adjusted based on research

advances and progress made.

Similarly, a mapping exercise was also undertaken within government agencies that comprise the

IARPC. Dr. Starkweather from IARPC stated that the internal governmental scan process objective

was not to create a “laundry list but rather an organized plan around collaborative opportunities.”

After a series of conversations within government, a draft report went out for public comment.

Both the FACCE-JPI and IARPC process involved input from external stakeholders.

At the industry level, the members of the Arctic Oil Spill Response Joint Industry Program (JIP) all

mapped out what improvements were desired in various areas of research. The group then set a

list of goals and milestones which was circulated to the technical working groups. In some instances,

104 FACCE-JPI, “Strategic Research Agenda,” 2012. Accessed on February 19, 2015 at https://www.faccejpi.com/faccejpi/Strategic-Research-Agenda

60 | P a g e

the technical working groups indicated that various components of the scope of work had already

been done.

Alternatively, other research networks relied on governmental strategies for direction in

establishing research priorities. The ACE CRC relied on the “20 Year Australian Antarctic Strategic

Plan” which underwent an extensive consultation process with key scientists and established a set

of recommendations for supporting Australia’s long-term scientific and strategic interests in the

Arctic. Dr. Worby from ACE CRC indicated that their scope of research is determined in part by

governments’ strategic priorities (top-down), and by what scientists feel are areas of high priority

science given recent advancements in research and shifts in priority areas of study (bottom-up). He

further stated that pragmatism is required in scoping out the research priorities seeing as there are

funding limitations, and that in some cases, the ACE CRC may not have the expertise.

Lastly, there was a trend to implement both a top-down and a bottom-up process to inform the

development of research priorities, as previously outlined at the ACE CRC. Helmholtz Association

also emphasized that the high level strategic guidelines were developed within Government (top-

down) and the research agendas are formulated and implemented by the researchers at the

Helmholtz Centres.

THE IMPORTANCE OF AN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

Interviewees emphasized the importance of developing an implementation plan to support

research priorities. Ms. McKhann from FACCE-JPI in particular, underscored the importance of

action rather than simply setting priorities. As such, FACCE-JPI developed an Implementation Plan

for 2014-2015 to describe the joint actions that the FACCE-JPI Governing Board aims to undertake,

on the basis of the short and medium-term priorities of the Strategic Research Agenda (which

describes the scope of the JPI, its five core research themes, and suggestions for short, medium and

long-term actions).

The IARPC’s main function is to develop national Arctic research policy and a five-year

implementation plan as outlined in Section 9: “The Interagency Committee Shall: (2) work with the

Commission to develop and establish an integrated national Arctic research policy that will guide

Federal agencies in developing and implementing their research programs in the Arctic; … [and] (4)

develop a 5-year plan to implement the national policy.”105

The Helmholtz Association developed a research infrastructure roadmap which lists the variety of

research infrastructures required to advance the planned research portfolio and conduct leading,

excellent research in the international field. The roadmap specifies the research infrastructure

specification including costs, time period for construction and operation, integration into the

research infrastructure category, and estimation of the operating costs. The roadmap serves as a

basis:

105 National Archives, “Executive Order 12501 – Arctic Research,” Accessed on February 12, 2015 at http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12501.html

61 | P a g e

“for discussing the strategic planning with the sponsors. It therefore forms a cornerstone

for binding planning within the BMBF [Federal Ministry of Education and Research]

processes, e.g. for preparation of a national roadmap.

for consultations on the strategies for financing, setup and operation of the research

infrastructures using already-formulated evaluation criteria and processes (i.e. using

precise timescales and budgets, summary cost estimates, setting priorities, including the

planning for closures/switch-offs and [new] structuring of the management for these

infrastructures),

for independent assessment of the research infrastructures by the Science Council, if

applicable,

for concrete consultation with the user community,

and not least, for the ongoing discussion within the Helmholtz Association itself, for regular

revision and updating of the Association’s research portfolio, as well as the infrastructure

planning.” 106

4.3.2 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT - COLLABORATION

Collaboration is a key rationale for the creation of a research network whereby a coordinated

approach would help identify and respond more effectively to common research challenge areas.

For example, the importance of collaboration is emphasized through a stated priority of the JIP, as

it “assures the most efficient use of resources, funding and expertise to improve the technologies

and methodologies for Arctic oil spill response, as does close collaboration with academic

institutions, governmental and non-governmental institutions.”107

There are four main levels of stakeholder engagement that will be explored in this section: the

research network level, the research theme level, project level, and external collaboration activities.

Note that while there are various levels of collaboration, engagement mechanisms and activities

tend to overlap and involve multiple levels.

A common mechanism for collaboration at the research network level is regularly established in-

person meetings between Governing Board members and/or other governing bodies. For example,

the FACCE-JPI Governance Board meets three times a year, the JIP meet twice a year, ACE CRC

board members meet quarterly, and so on. Other meeting formats can include conferences, for

example the NCOF holds a conference roughly every two years.

On a more regular basis, and in the absence of in-person meetings, calls are typically held between

individuals involved in the research project. In some cases, members of the governing body are

involved in most, if not all of these calls and as such are able to make connections across research

106 Helmholtz Association, “Helmholtz-Roadmap for Research Infrastructures,” Accessed on March 2, 2015 at http://www.helmholtz.de/fileadmin/user_upload/publikationen/pdf/11_Helmholtz_Roadmap_EN_WEB.pdf 107 Arctic Response Technology, “Why we exist,” accessed on February 16, 2015 at http://www.arcticresponsetechnology.org/about-the-jip/why-we-exist

62 | P a g e

projects and encourage collaboration. The IARPC Secretariat and the BalticSTERN Secretariat both

indicated that they are involved on every call and as a result, opportunities for collaboration

emerge.

As previously stated, the IARPC Collaboration online platform is a unique tool to facilitate

collaboration, for example whereby all meetings are automatically open to the public (see Section

4.1.1 Trend – ICT as a tool to facilitate coordination and collaboration above). Moreover, the IARPC

Collaborations also takes a very ‘hands-off’ approach to facilitating collaboration at the project

level, according to Dr. Stackweather. Here, the responsibility to identify and collaborate with other

researchers and a variety other stakeholders is given to the Collaboration Team leaders. The only

requirement and expectations of the Collaboration Teams were very broad including meeting the

milestones, and meeting monthly to get to know each other. Figure 16 below is a visualization of

coordination amongst federal Arctic research agencies.

FIGURE 16 – A VISUALIZATION OF FEDERAL ARCTIC RESEARCH COORDINATION

WHO’S TALKING TO WHOM?108

According to Dr. Stackweather, this ‘hands-off’ approach has resulted in each Collaboration Team

evolving differently and approaching their milestones in very different ways. For example, some

first did an inventory of the level of research activity on the topic at the federal agencies; others set

up a forum to review best practices; some held discussions and brought in experts; other teams

developed a mutual framework for how to look at various challenges. The IARPC focuses on picking

108 IARPC, “IARPC Overview 2014,” Accessed on February 12, 2015 at http://www.iarpccollaborations.org/uploads/cms/documents/iarpc_overview_20141211.pdf

63 | P a g e

the best leaders, and then gives these key individuals the freedom to lead the group. Collaboration

is furthermore facilitated between leaders with a meeting every 6 months to cross-pollinate ideas.

The most recent IARPC Team Leader Workshop meeting in Washington, DC in November 2014,

further emphasized the importance of the right kind of engagement in Collaboration Teams. Key

findings and recommendations on how to increase collaboration across the enterprise resulting

from the meeting include:

“Making the Team Leaders Workshop a recurring event

Evaluating the specific role of Arctic Observing Systems, Modelling, Arctic Communities,

and Arctic Data teams in cross-cutting

Engaging across line offices of broad/diverse agencies (e.g. Encouraging intra-agency

“Arctic Teams”)

Using the new website and webinars (pooled resources that create value) to communicate

team activities and draw in other teams.” 109

Stakeholder engagement occurred when developing both the IARPC 5-year Arctic research plan,

and the FACCE-JPI Strategic Research Agenda had input from the Stakeholder Advisory Group, as

outlined in Section 4.3.1 Best Practices – Setting Research Priorities above).

In addition, BalticSTERN deployed two surveys to the general public: BalticSurvey involved public

attitudes regarding the environmental situation and use of the sea, and BalticSUN involved asking

the public how much they would be willing to pay for an improved state of the Baltic Sea (3,800

million euros annually to achieve a less eutrophied Sea until 2050).

Alternatively, the Helmholtz Association encourages international cooperation through the large-

scale research facilities of international significance, such as particle accelerators which have a great

appeal to researchers around the world. Over 8,500 foreign scientists visit the Helmholtz Centres

for access to these facilities. Ms. Chelioti (Director of International Affairs at Helmholtz Association)

remarked that the infrastructure component strengthens collaboration with international

researchers by facilitating interactions as well as opening up access to foreign research

infrastructure in turn, see Figure 17 illustrating international collaborations at Helmholtz.

109 IARPC Collaborations, “Key Findings and Recommendations: IARPC Team Leader’s Workshop,” 5 January 2015. Accessed on February 12, 2015 at http://www.iarpccollaborations.org/uploads/cms/documents/iarpc-team-leads-workshop-public-summary.pdf

64 | P a g e

FIGURE 17 – HELMHOLTZ INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

Lastly, ACE CRC facilitates cooperation through formal partnership agreements whereby ACE CRC

and a partner identify an area of mutual interest, then scope out the work required to achieve the

desired outcome, and establish formal commitment of resources required to support the work,

such as staff time, access to vessels or other infrastructure. Dr. Worby’s role as CEO is to establish

the contractual agreement, then the scientists are responsible for moving things forward with

minimal direct oversight or involvement from Dr. Worby at the project level.

4.3.3 ACCELERATING THE PACE OF RESEARCH

There were three over-lapping mechanisms used to accelerate the pace of research: partnering,

leveraging investments, and recruiting new expertise. An additional noted method used by NCOF

to accelerate that pace of research was to establish an agreed upon model for ocean forecasting

called NEMO. NCOF Chairman Dr. de Mora stated that this was a painful process but an essential

step for enhancing research in this area.

PARTNERING – “THE WHOLE IS GREATER THAN THE SUM OF ITS PARTS”

A statement echoed in multiple interviews was “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.” For

example, Dr. Worby suggested that the partnership model allows ACE to tackle questions that no

partner would be able to accomplish on their own. ACE draws expertise and resources from around

the world and as such, is able to leverage the Australian governments’ investment. Furthermore,

he suggested the nature of some organizations’ governing and funding structures makes partnering

65 | P a g e

very challenging, and ACE CRC provides these organizations with “a user friendly environment for

partnering.” The partnership model allows individuals to think more broadly about their narrow

interests (at both the institutional and scientist level).

In addition, FACCE-JPI is aligning research programs at the national and European level through

partnerships and collaboration. On a global scale, FACCE-JPI “recognizes the necessity for a global

approach to large scale issues as are Agriculture, Food Security and Climate Change. FACCE-JPI is

actively developing partnerships with international initiatives going beyond the EU: an International

Call on Greenhouse Gases mitigation with non-European countries from the Global Research

Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases, and a joint action with the Belmont Forum on Food

Security and Climate Change.”110 Note that the success of a research project depends in part on the

scale of the partnership and collaboration effort. For example, FACCE-MASCUR is a small

community (100 people according to the bibliometric analysis) and according to Ms. Ericsdotter,

this is one of the reasons it worked well.

Both NCOF and Cedre partner in order to access funding for research projects. In particular, NCOF

is the vehicle on which members collectively bid on opportunities for funding in the EU that, in Dr.

de Mora’s view, they may not be able to win independently. For example, Cedre establishes

consortia on a case-by-case basis to answer requests for proposals from French research agencies

or from the European Union.

LEVERAGING INVESTMENTS

There were several examples of research network activities that leveraged investments including

the IARPC Collaborations (while budget neutral), whereby Dr. Stackweather noted that some

groups self-organized to make a proposal and were awarded funding. Another example was ACE

CRC collaboration with international partners who contribute significant resources such as ship

time, in-kind staff support, etc. and leverage Australian Government investment in research many

times over. In fact, “the ACE CRC is a highly cost-effective mechanism for driving collaboration,

leveraging ‘in kind’ contributions from national and international partners in excess of five times

the cash investment.”111 Furthermore, Mr. Mullin from JIP stated that collaboration is key to bring

together organizations with different capabilities and there are a variety of ways to leverage

investment through collaboration including access to scientific expertise, or access to ships for

example.

110 FACCE-JPI, “Strategic Research Agenda,” 2012. Accessed on February 19, 2015 at https://www.faccejpi.com/faccejpi/Strategic-Research-Agenda 111 ACE CRC, “Exit Report 2010-2014,” Accessed on February 19, 2015 at http://www.acecrc.org.au/access/repository/resource/b22b6f76-ba81-1032-820a-40404adc5e91/ACE%20CRC%20Exit%20Report%202010-2014_FINAL.pdf

66 | P a g e

RECRUITING NEW EXPERTISE

A number of interviewees highlighted the importance of recruiting new expertise or interactions

with experts. For example, a key benefits of ACE CRC partnership includes access to scientific

expertise from around the world, as illustrated in Figure 18 below, and integrating Australian

scientists into a world-class research team. In addition, Research Board Chairman Dr. Colwell

suggested that the interaction of key investigators with international experts is resulting in a new

level of self-assurance, and improved quality of science.

FIGURE 18 – THE GLOBAL REACH OF ACE CRC PARTNERSHIPS112

112 ACE CRC, “Research Participants,” at http://www.acecrc.org.au/About/Research%20Participants

67 | P a g e

5. OPTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

This section provides a menu of actionable options and scenarios to support the design and creation

of the pan-Canadian Network of Expertise on Oil Spill Research by Environment Canada.

FUNDING MODEL OPTIONS AND SCENARIOS

1. The following options assume a budget neutral approach for research activities:

a. No support for the administrative function

i. Leverage the network to collectively seek and respond to Requests for

Proposals in Canada and internationally (i.e. NCOF).

b. Environment Canada (and/or other federal departments or agencies) to provide

direct or indirect support for the administrative function of the network; however,

the agreed upon research objectives and milestones are budget neutral (i.e. IARPC).

For example, Environment Canada could provide a staff member(s) whereby 100%

of their activities are focused on supporting the research network.

2. The following options assume a model that provides financing to support research

activities:

a. “Common pot” - Each member of the research network (e.g. Environment Canada,

Natural Resources Canada, and others as identified in the scan) put forward funding

to support the agreed upon research objectives and milestones. The “common pot”

can be distributed through:

i. A competitive process of allocating research funds whereby proposals are

evaluated and successful proposals receive funding (i.e. JIP, and CGIAR

Fund’s Window 1). This option provides a mix of quality assurance through

the competitive process, and strategic research planning that will be

formulated jointly by the funding bodies.

ii. Option to set aside a small percentage of the overall pot to support

activities or projects that encourage networking (e.g. Helmholtz

Association’s “Initiative and Networking Fund”).

b. Contributions by research theme whereby the research network members put

forward resources to support the established research objectives and milestones

(i.e. CGIAR Fund’s Window 2 and Helmholtz’s programme-oriented funding model).

i. 100% supported by government departments and agencies

ii. Majority (e.g. 70%) of this funding could be sourced from the government

departments and agencies, and the remaining (e.g. 30%) to be attracted by

68 | P a g e

the research themes in the form of contract funding (from a mix of public

and private sector sponsors) (i.e. Helmholtz Association Centres funding

model)

iii. 50/50 split sourced from government department and agencies, and the

remaining sourced by contracts and tenders (i.e. Cedre)

c. Contributions by research project the research network members put forward

resources to support the established research objectives and milestones (i.e. CGIAR

Fund’s Window 3, BalticSTERN).

d. Combination of a), b), and c) (i.e. CGIAR fund); and/or

e. Levy from the private sector members of the research network (assumes both

participation of oil and gas companies and the agreement of the oil and gas

companies).

GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE MODELS AND OPTIONS

1. Governance Board to provide strategic direction to include:

a. Chair,

b. Representative members,

c. Independent members, and/or

d. Mix of b) and c)

2. Research Board to provide scientific advice,

3. President / CEO to head the research network,

4. Secretariat / Management Team to coordinate activities,

5. Committees could include:

a. Executive Committee,

b. Communications Committee,

c. Budget / Finance Committee,

d. Computing / Data Committee, and/or

e. Strategic Partnership Committee.

69 | P a g e

OPTIONS TO ESTABLISH RESEARCH PRIORITIES

1. Mapping exercise of current research, areas of research to be strengthened and new

research areas.

2. Define short-, medium-, and/or long-term priorities.

3. Employ both a top-down and bottom-up approach when developing the research priorities.

4. Involve stakeholder feedback (including international stakeholders).

5. Develop an implementation plan to support the research priorities.

a. Establish milestones

b. Outline research infrastructure required

c. Specify expected outcomes

d. Include a time frame

OPTIONS TO FACILITATE COLLABORATION

1. Hold meetings/conferences amongst participating members of the research network on an

annual or biannual basis.

2. Develop an online platform for members.

3. Deploy surveys where needed to seek feedback from various stakeholders.

4. Involve stakeholders in the development of research priorities.

5. Give access to research infrastructure for all participants and/or international participants.

OTHER OBSERVATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION

1. Create and establish mechanisms to capture key metrics correlated to outcomes.

2. Establish an evaluation framework to assess the relevance, performance (effective and

efficient), and other criteria.

3. While the research network may be pan-Canadian in scope, it is highly advisable to

encourage, facilitate and support international collaboration with oil spill research

networks including, but not limited to GoMRI, Cedre, and the JIP. Collaboration activities

could include hosting or participating in international conferences, collaboration at the

research level amongst scientists, succonded staff, access to research infrastructure.

70 | P a g e

4. Emphasize the importance of multi-disciplinary research.

5. Time-period for the research network, such as a term of 4 or 5 years could be considered

to ensure certainty and time for the research to develop.

6. Develop Terms of Reference to clarify the roles and responsibilities of the research network

members.

7. Communication of (1) the research network activities to facilitate collaboration amongst

the internal members as well as with international parties, and (2) communication of

research results through mechanisms such as open access to the reports, translated

material for various audiences such as policy-makers, presentations at meetings or

conferences, etc. to facilitate knowledge transfer and the use of research results.