Joint Bi-Regional Pilot Call on Ocean Energy and Research Infrastructures (JBPC-OE&INFRA) Terms of Reference

Transcription

1 Joint Bi-Regional Pilot Call on Ocean Energy and Research Infrastructures (JBPC-OE&INFRA) Terms of Reference Regulatory Bodies of the Joint Bi-Regional PILOT Call 2 1. Background Information 4 2. Group of Funding Parties (GFP) and governance of the Pilot Call Funding model and commitment 5 4. Themes and scope of the Joint Transnational Call 6 5. Eligibility, composition and duration of the proposals 7 6. Allowable costs 9 7. Submission of Proposals 9 8. Evaluation and Selection of Proposals 9 9. Decision Making by the Group of Funding Parties Project Contracts, Consortium Agreement and Project Monitoring 15 Annexes: Annex 1. Detailed formulation of research topics Annex 2. National regulations of Funding Parties Annex 3. Letter of Commitment Annex 4. Proposed calendar of implementation Annex 5: Overview of contributions by the participating funding organizations to each topic Annex 6. List of National Contact Persons Annex 7: Research Infrastructures Annex 8. Abbreviations and Glossary 1

2 Regulatory Bodies of the Joint PILOT Call Body Members Function Funding agency representatives Group of Funding Parties (GFP) A group of EU-CELAC funding agencies, ministries and other institutions which provide funds and administrative services to support national beneficiaries in collaborative projects to be jointly selected. The GFP is chaired by Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry y Competitiveness (MEIC) and FECYT. Each Funding Party will select a representative for the GFP. - Central coordinating body for the Call - Defines the principles of the Call: the steering, decision making and monitoring of its implementation - Defines and organizes the Call, the application procedures and the review of proposals - Approves eligibility of proposals - Supervises the entire evaluation process - Each member of the GFP nominates 5 or more experts / evaluators per research field in which s/he participates as funder - Takes the final decision on the selection of projects to be funded based on the evaluation carried out by SEC - Suggests experts to be part of the SEC, approves the final SEC composition and nominates the chair - Each GFP member checks compliance with its individual national eligibility requirements before sending the proposal to evaluation - Approves the minutes of the final meeting formulated by the Call Secretariat. Germany BMBF (tbc) Panama SENACYT Carlos Aguirre/HUmberto Álvarez Argentina MINCYT Sergio Matheos Uruguay ANII María Laura Fernández Costa Rica MICITT Federico Torres Mexico CONACYT Arturo Borja /SENER Ernesto Hernández Spain MEIC Joaquin Serrano 2

3 Scientific Evaluation Committee (SEC) Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) Call Secretariat (CS) - International highlevel scientific experts who evaluate the proposals. - Each SEC has a chair approved by the GFP - The final composition of the SECs is approved by the GFP - Each member of the GFP and each large research infrastructure participating will propose a member of SEC - Preferably, SEC members will not participate in the peer review phase of the evaluation Each SEC member will sign a declaration that there is no conflict of interest. - International highlevel scientific experts - Each Topic has a SAB - The final composition of the SAB is agreed by the GFP - Each member of the GFP has the right to propose a member of the SAB - Representatives of the participating large research infrastructure Comprised by MEIC FECYT and CONACYT, located at the premises of MEIC in Madrid - Ensures the quality and coherence of the scores and comments of the evaluation reports. - Proposes to the GFP the pre proposals invited to the second stage. - Ranks the proposals according to their evaluation results and recommends an evaluation cut for potential funding (in the ranking, a boundary between fundable and non-fundable proposals must be defined) - Forwards the funding recommendations to the GFP, including: final overall score and ranking list of proposals, funding categories and report on strengthen and weaknesses. - To assess and provide feedback for the scientific queries during the submission phase - To assign the proposals to the evaluators according to their expertise. The SAB assignation must be validated by the GFP - Manages all administrative processes of the joint transnational call - Assists GFP in all administrative tasks - Checks the central eligibility rules of the submitted proposals in coordination with CCP - Ensures that peer review is properly done - Informs GFP about the results of the eligibility checks providing the rationale for (non)eligibility of proposals - Provides to SECs and GFP the peer review evaluations before consensus meeting - Assists SECs in organizing Argentina Costa Rica Germany: BMBF (tbc) Mexico: - CONACYT Nestor Diaz - SENER Edgar Santoyo Spain - MEIC Alberto Abanades - PLOCAN Jose Joaquin Hernandez Brito / Ayoze Castro - IH Cantabria Raul Guanche Uruguay - ANII-U de GRanada Miguel Losa Spain FECYT Almudena Carrero / Leonor Gómez 3

4 Call Contact Person (CCP) One (or more) persons nominated by each member of the GFP in their home country ranking of proposals - Informs the applicants about (non-) eligibility of their proposals - Informs applicants of the final outcome of the evaluation and funding recommendation - Informs all applicants and interested parties about ERANet-LAC call regulations and their individual international call- and funding rules - Argentina MINCYT Monica Silenzi - Costa Rica MICITT Eliana Ulate - Mexico CONACYT Moira Karosuo - Mexico SENER-FSE Oscar Gonzalez - Panama SENACYT Claudia Guerrero /Carlos Aguirre - Spain: MEIC Juan Climent, Leonor Gómez. - Uruguay ANII Maria Laura Fernandez - 1. Background Information Cooperation in research and innovation between the European Union and the Latin American and Caribbean region has a long tradition. The results attained as of the Senior Official Meeting (SOM) of Madrid in 2010 to date exceed by far the number of important developments and gains accumulated over the previous years since the Group of Río. The European Union and the Community of Latin-American and Caribbean States (EU-CELAC) cooperation covers the implementation of the Joint Initiative for Research and Innovation (JIRI) through the EU-CELAC Action Plan, originally agreed on at the 2010 EU-LAC Summit in Madrid which first item addresses Science, Research, Innovation and Technology. Continuous advances in the implementation of the EU-CELAC JIRI led to the commitment to create a EU CELAC Common Research Area (CRA) aimed at coordinating and guiding the activities under three lines of cooperation i) jointly address common challenges thematic cooperation; ii) increase mobility of researchers; and iii) mutual access to research infrastructures, in addition to the thematic research areas commonly agreed for the implementation of the JIRI. Following the conclusions and recommendations from the EU-CELAC Senior Officials Meetings (SOM) on Science and Technology, in agreement with the activities of the Roadmap for the implementation of the JIRI, according to the R&I CRA, the work and activities of the respective EU-CELAC JIRI working groups - supported by the bi-regional projects ALCUE NET and ERANet-LAC funded by the European Commission, within the 7th Framework Programme for Research and Technology Development (FP7) - has led to today s consolidated biregional policy dialogue in science and technology. The concrete joint activities implemented through the joint calls under the ERANet-LAC project represents the consolidation of the structures required to ensure a permanent bi-regional dialogue to periodical up-dating of the advances towards joint cooperation activities in S&T (identification of common interest priorities, topics, instruments and programmes according to the needs and interests of each Region). The extended JIRI Working Group on Energy, and the EU CELAC partner countries of both, ERANet-LAC and ALCUE Net bi-regional projects seek common visions on specific issues, coordinate activities and identify priorities and funding R&I projects of shared interest. In the frame of the ALCUE NET and ERANET LAC meetings celebrated in Brussels, Madrid, Panama and Gran Canaria, the last one celebrated in December 2017, the advantages for the CRA objectives of defining an 4

5 launching an open pilot call based on sharing large R&I infrastructures has resulted in the Joint Bi-Regional Pilot Call on Ocean Energy and Research Infrastructures (JBPC) where the first Research Infrastructures (RI) invited to participate are Plataforma Océanica de Canaria (PLOCAN) and Instituto de Hidráulica Ambiental de la Universidad de Cantabria (IH Cantabria). The success of this initiative will open the door for defining new calls in various thematic areas based in the CRA spirit of sharing S&T infrastructures and also facilitating the mobility of researchers of countries from both regions. 2. Group of Funding Parties (GFP) and governance of the Pilot Call. The following programme owners have signed the LETTER OF COMMITMENT TO FUND the Joint Bi- Regional Pilot Call on Ocean Energy and Research Infrastructures (JBPC) confirming their participation in the Group of Funding Parties (GPF) and their readiness to pledge financial contributions for funding the proposals selected through the Joint Bi-Regional Pilot Call (JBPC): Organisation MINCYT MICITT CONICIT CONACYT/SENER SENACYT AEI-MEIC ANII Country/Region Argentina Costa Rica Mexico Panama Spain Uruguay The GFP is the central coordinating body for the Joint Bi-Regional Pilot Call. It is chaired by the Project Management Agency at AEI (MEIC) and FECYT (MEIC). The GFP is composed by one representative from each Funding Party participating in the Call. It is responsible for defining and organising the Joint Bi-Regional Pilot Call, the application procedures and the review of proposals. The GFP will be assisted by the Call Secretariat comprised by MEIC, FECYT- which is located at the premises of MEIC in Madrid, in all administrative tasks. 3. Funding model and commitment The Joint Bi-Regional Pilot Call will be implemented through a coordinated funding scheme whereby each Funding Party will fund its own national scientific teams within a multilateral project ( Virtual Common Pot ), with a view to harmonize the funding contributions in order to guarantee the funding of the highest-quality projects with added value for bi-regional cooperation which have been selected through a peer review process. The total amount of funding by each Funding Party available for the present call is given in the following table: 5

6 Table of topics and forward budgets Germany Argentina Costa Rica Mexico Panama Spain Uruguay Computacional models x x x x x x Materials x x x x x Standard env. impact x x x x x x Multipurpose devices x x x x x x R&D and testing of systems, subsystems and components x x x x x Resource evaluation x x x x x x Budget (Euros) 200, , , , , , See Annex 6: Overview of contributions by the participating funding organizations to each topic The indicative total financial contribution to the Joint Bi-Regional Pilot Call will be XXX. The funding of an individual proposal will depend on the nature and duration of the proposed activities and must be justified in terms of the resources needed to achieve the objectives of the project. The funding requested should therefore be realistically adjusted to the actual needs of the proposal, taking into account any other funds available. Individual regulations of the Funding Parties will be published in the Call text: National Regulations (see Annex 2). 4. Scope of the Joint Bi-Regional Pilot Call The goal of this Joint Bi-Regional Pilot Call is to keep long-term collaboration between EU Member States and/or Associated Countries and, Latin-American and Caribbean countries by submitting transnational research and innovation project proposals where large research infrastructures will be used. Thematic Focus The topics selected by the funding parties which are of their interest for funding and for which have allocated the respective budget amounts they are willing to spend, are related to innovative technologies associated with the uses of waves, marine currents and tides, salt gradient and thermal gradient energies. 1. Validate computational models in laboratory and field facilities. 2. Material development and/or evaluation for equipment operating in an aggressive saline en- 6

7 vironment. 3. Development of standard environmental impact evaluation methodologies 4. Offshore and coastal multipurpose devices. 5. R&D and testing focus on system, subsystems and components to reduce costs into full-scale prototype, tested both individually and as part of the whole device. 6. Data collection/ evaluation of resources. These horizontal topics are applied to four technologies of interest in ocean energy: - Tidal and current(tc) - Wave(W) - Salinity gradients (S) - Thermal gradients (T) The following table indicates a proposed level of knowledge/development for each topic that might be supported: Low (2-4) Medium (5-6) High (7-8) Computational models S, T, TW, MC Materials S,T, TC, W Standard env. impact S,T, TC, W Multipurpose devices S,T, TC, W R&D and testing of systems, S,T TC W subsystems and components Site selection S,T TC, W Transnational consortia are invited to submit proposals related to these topics. 5. Eligibility, composition and duration of the proposals Applicants must be eligible for funding according to the regulations of their respective national Funding Parties. They can represent public and private scientific, research, technological and innovation institutions on national, federal or EU-CELAC regional level, research active industry and NGOs and other institutions involved in research activities, as long as they are eligible for funding according to the respective national regulations. Only transnational projects will be funded. Each collaborative consortium should have the optimal critical mass to achieve ambitious scientific/innovation goals and should clearly show an added value from working together. 5.1 Eligibility of proposals and applicants To be eligible a proposal must: 1. Conform to the scope and the thematic focus of the Call as described in Annex 1: Detailed formulation of research topics. 2. Meet the consortium composition and partnership requirements as specified below (5.2), and comply with the maximum allowed duration (5.5). 3. Secure that every individual partner/applicant of the proposal complies with the funding regulations of its respective national Funding Party (see Annex 2: Funding Regulations). 4. Be complete according to the rules and in line with the required proposal structure described in these Terms of Reference. 7

8 5. Be submitted in English, using the Web tool provided by the secretariat: (see Section 7), before the submission deadline on XXXXXXXX, Only proposals meeting all the above-mentioned eligibility criteria will be processed by the Call Secretariat. Non-eligible proposals will be rejected. The applicants will be informed by the Call Secretariat. Each partner in the consortium must ensure that no doubts exist about the eligibility of their institution (university, academic institutions, industry), the eligibility of their Principal Investigator (permanent staff, position secured for the duration of the project), and their eligible costs. Therefore, applicants are strongly advised to check their national funding regulations and to contact their national Call Contact Person (CCP) in due time before the submission. The CCP will be available by phone and mail during the usual office hours in their respective country. Decisions about eligibility of proposals by the GFP are final. 5.2 Composition of the proposal research consortium Each consortium submitting a proposal must involve: A minimum of four eligible partners from different countries with at least two countries from each region (see the list of funding organizations). A maximum number of national partners applying for funding will be defined in the institutional rules of each funding organisation. The coordinator and the rest of the partners in a consortium must comply with the corresponding national eligibility rules of the funding organizations. 5.3 Associated partners Self-financed associated partners may also be part of the consortia if they are able to clearly demonstrate an added value to the consortium and secure their own funding. The self-financed/associated partner must be endorsed by its corresponding national organization. This national organization will provide the Call Secretariat with a signed official letter of support from their Head of Department, Financial Director, or equivalent position, stating the commitment of the associated partner organization/company to provide its own funding. This letter must be included as an annex at the end of the proposal submission form. 5.4 International coordinator Each consortium must nominate a project International Coordinator to represent the consortium, submit the proposal, and establish any further communication with the Call Secretariat. The contact data of the Coordinator her/himself (and optionally of her/his support staff) as well as of the institution should be included in the proposal. Additionally, within a joint proposal, each national group leader will be the contact person for the respective national funding organization. It is recommended that the coordinators counter check the eligibility of all partners. All coordinators are allowed to contact the partners national CCPs. 5.5 Duration The duration of a project can be up to 36 months (national regulations of individual Funding Parties 8

9 apply). 6. Allowable costs The funding of proposals will be administrated according to a virtual common pot model: each Funding Party will fund its national applicants within the selected proposals according to its own regulations, proceedings, and legal requirements. The items or concepts (personnel, travel, equipment, materials, overheads, etc.) that are fundable depend on the different regulations of every Funding Party, and might differ for the individual partners/applicants of a given proposal. The corresponding consortium will finance all the expenses incurred by the large infrastructures directly related to the projects of this bi-regional joint pilot call. Before starting the projects, all consortia must sign an agreement with the large infrastructure in which actions and budget, especially concerning the participation of the large infrastructures, are clearly detailed. The applicants are therefore strongly advised to check the allowable eligible costs of their respective national Funding Party (Annex 2. National Regulations), and to contact its Call Contact Person CCP (Annex. List of National Contact Persons) to confirm the eligibility of the requested costs. 7. Submission of Proposals Only proposal synopsis and full proposals submitted through the online submission system hosted by the call secretariat will be accepted. Proposals sent by mail, , telex or facsimile will be rejected without notice. The proposal, based on the synopsis, will be checked for eligibility and technical feasibility by the CS, GFP members and nominated experts. The proposal synopsis consists of a maximum 5-page document with the description of the project, including its state-of-the-art and rationale, and the required utilization of linked infrastructures. The short description of the participating organization and its tasks will be provided in separated formatted annexes to that document. Both synopsis and full proposals will be delivered for the peer-reviewed evaluation procedure. All members of the GFP will be provided reading access to the on-line submission system. Double Submission Researchers are only allowed to participate in one proposal as principal investigator. 8. Eligibility, Evaluation and Selection of Proposals 8.1. Fundamental principles and the evaluation process The fundamental principles governing the evaluation of project proposals are: Transparency. The process for reaching funding decisions will be clearly described and available to any interested party. Equality of treatment. All proposals shall be treated alike, irrespective of where they origi- 9

10 nate or the identity of the applicants. Ethical considerations. Any proposal that contravenes fundamental ethical principles of a Funding Party may be excluded from being evaluated and selected at any time by decision of the GFP. The national partner representatives, in cooperation with the call secretariat will check the eligibility of all proposals (see point 8.2). All admissible applications are then assessed by the SAB in order to give a formal opinion on the feasibility of the proposal to be carried out in the available large infrastructures. This panel will deliver a pass or fail resolution. The eligible proposals will be evaluated according to the evaluation criteria (8.3) The evaluators will be proposed by the GFP and will cover the specific fields of the research topic(s) addressed in the Joint Bi-Regional Pilot Call and the potential uses of the infrastructure. Eligible proposals will be evaluated by at least two remote experts and will be discussed in an open competition in which a Scientific Evaluation Committees (SECs) will rank proposals according to the programme s evaluation criteria stated in point Each SEC consists of at least three experts selected from the remote evaluators, (with the participation without the right to vote of one representative of the large research infrastructures which will host the project). The SECs will formulate a short consensus report for each proposal (strengths and weaknesses) that will be forwarded by the Call Secretariat to the project coordinator, along with the formal result of funding or rejection of the proposal. Based on the ranking and taking into account the available (national) budgets, the participating national funding agencies will take funding decisions. The national funding agencies will inform the applicants in their countries of what further action needs to be taken at this stage. 8.2 Eligibility check The national partner representatives, in cooperation with the call secretariat will check the eligibility of all proposals. 1) The Call Secretariat (CS) will check the eligibility of the submitted proposals against the criteria agreed by the Group of Funding Parties, GFP. The CS will inform the GFP about the results providing the rationale for non-eligibility of individual proposals. 2) Each Funding Party will check the eligibility of its national applicants according to its national regulations (see Part 2 for National Regulations), informing the CS afterwards. The ultimate decision on the eligibility of an applicant relies on its respective Funding Party. The coordinators of the non-eligible proposals will be informed right after the eligibility check is concluded. 10

11 8.3 Peer review procedure The selection of the proposals and full proposals for funding is based on an international, independent peer-review procedure, as follows: First, a dedicated pool of evaluators appointed by the GFP, consisting of external independent experts, will anonymously assess the merits of the submitted proposals. Each Funding Party can nominate experts for the topic for the call (the number of experts will be defined by the call secretariat in accordance with the number of proposals in agreement with the GFP). Second, each of the research infrastructures participating in the call will nominate an expert who evaluates the appropriateness of each proposal to be developed in the selected large research infrastructure. The evaluators of the pool of evaluators are selected on the basis of their competence, irrespective of their nationality, age and affiliation. Evaluators need to have skills and knowledge appropriate to the relevant expertise required to assess a given proposal. Knowledge of and experience in European-Latin-American / Caribbean research collaboration will be considered an advantage toward selection as evaluator. All evaluators must have proven experience in one or more of the following areas or activities: Management or evaluation of ST&I projects; International cooperation in science and technology; Use of the results of research and technological development projects; Evaluators must also have appropriate skills in usage of the English language. Each proposal will be evaluated by three independent evaluators (with the benefit of expert technical advice of the expert of the research infrastructure). The Funding Agency will provide names and contact data of the experts to the CS. The evaluators have to be contacted beforehand in order to guarantee that they are willing to participate in the Pilot Call evaluation process. In order to keep a regional balance, preferably one evaluator will be from the Latin- America/Caribbean region and one from an EU-MS/AC region. The final reviewers will be pre-selected from the pool of evaluators with a view to achieving maximum competence for the evaluation. The allocation of proposals to evaluators will be carried out by the Scientific Advisory Board coordinated by the Call Secretariat. The evaluation reports will be submitted through the online evaluation system to the Call Secretariat, which forwards them to the Scientific Evaluation Committees, SECs Rating Scores The evaluators are requested to assess proposals against a set of criteria, each of which may be awarded a maximum of 5 points per criterion according to the following scale: EXCELLENT = 5 points The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion. Any shortcomings are minor. 11

12 VERY GOOD = 4 points The proposal addresses the criterion very well, but a small number of shortcomings are present. GOOD = 3 points The proposal addresses the criterion well, but a number of shortcomings are present. FAIR = 2 points The proposal broadly addresses the criterion, but there are significant weaknesses. POOR = 1 point The criterion is inadequately addressed, or there are serious inherent weaknesses. 0 points The proposal fails to address the criterion or cannot be assessed due to missing or incomplete information. The evaluation procedure will be done according to the criteria defined below ( Each evaluation criterion will be measured through categories and on the above 5-0 scale. The threshold for individual criteria is Evaluation criteria 1. Excellence Note: The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the topic description: Clarity and pertinence of the objectives; Credibility of the proposed approach; Soundness of the concept, including trans-disciplinary considerations, where relevant; Extent that proposed work is ambitious, has innovation potential, and is beyond the state of the art (e.g. ground-breaking objectives, novel concepts and approaches). Appropriateness of the proposal to the research infrastructure capability (evaluators will benefit from the advice and support of experts from the selected research infrastructure) 2. Impact Note: The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent to which the outputs of the project should contribute at the European and/or CELAC International level: The expected impacts listed in the topic description under the relevant topic; Enhancing research and innovation capacity and integration of new knowledge; Any other environmental and socially important impacts; Effectiveness of the proposed measures to exploit and disseminate the project results (including management of IPR), to communicate the project, and to manage research data where relevant. In case of industry and SME participation: Strengthening the competitiveness and growth of companies by developing innovations meeting the needs of global markets, and where relevant, by delivering such innovations to the markets Added value for the EU-CELAC cooperation in R&D&I Mobility, networking and training of human resources in both regions. 3. Quality and efficiency of the implementation 12

13 Note: The following aspects will be taken into account: Coherence and effectiveness of the work plan, including appropriateness of the allocation of tasks and resources; Complementarity of the participants within the consortium (when relevant); Appropriateness of the management structures and procedures, including risk and innovation management. Appropriateness of the proposal to the research infrastructure 8.4 Scientific Evaluation Committees, SEC. The Scientific Evaluation Committees (SECs), approved by the GFP and constituted by experts or scientific experts, will assess and consolidate the results of the peer review evaluation process Composition and definition of the SEC There will be one SEC per thematic area. Each Funding Party, the research infrastructure and have the right to propose members for the SEC. The SEC membership will be defined through a voting process among the Funding Parties in case there are sufficient nominations. The research infrastructure expert will only participate in those proposals that affect to their research infrastructures. The SEC members may come from non-participating countries as well as from participating countries in the Call. Members should be scientifically renowned experts and have large experience in managing, following and evaluating transnational projects. The Group of Funding Parties will consolidate the suggestions ensuring a balance between the fields of expertise addressed by the Joint Transnational Call and keeping in mind the gender and geographical balance. The SECs will only be accepted once approved by the Funding Parties Performance and objectives of the SEC Each SEC will consolidate the results of the evaluation and make recommendations to the GFP in the form of a ranking list of proposals proposed for funding. Each SEC will in particular consider: i) proposals that have received a big difference of scores among the evaluators and ii) Proposals with the same score, giving priority following the criteria from section8.3.2 The SEC members are asked to sign a confidentiality agreement and must declare conflicts of interest according to the set rules in the ToR for the SEC and the guidelines for evaluators. The process for dealing with conflict of interest in the SEC is also summarized in 8.5. The specific tasks and objectives of the Scientific Evaluation Committees are: A) To ensure the appropriateness of the proposals to the research infrastructure. B) To ensure the quality and coherence of the scores and comments of the evaluation reports. C) To assess and consolidate the evaluation results, defining by consensus for each proposal: A final overall score on the basis of the evaluation results, which will lead to the overall ranking. Assignation of the proposal to one of the three following funding categories: - Highly recommended for funding. - Recommended for funding. - Recommended for funding only after further consultation to the funding agencies. A feedback to the applicants based on the evaluation results. The final recommendation for funding rests with the GFP. The formal funding decision will be made 13

14 by the Funding Parties. 8.5 Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality The GFP relies on the integrity of evaluators and SEC members to base their opinion with strict impartiality exclusively on the basis of the information given in the proposal and against the established evaluation criteria. The Call Secretariat will take all reasonable steps to ensure that every evaluator (including those nominated by the research infrastructures) is not faced with a conflict of interest in relation to the proposals s/he is requested to assess. The evaluators will commit themselves to inform the CS whenever a conflict of interest arises in the course of their duties. To facilitate this, the online evaluation mechanism will contain a section specifically requiring the evaluator to indicate possible conflict of interest, for each proposal evaluated. When informed of such conflict, the CS and the funding parties will take all necessary steps to replace him/her. The evaluators are committed to maintaining the confidentiality of the information contained within the proposals they evaluate and of the outcome of the evaluation process. The CS is committed to maintaining the anonymity of the evaluators. However, members of the CS will have access to all information relating to the evaluation process. Under no circumstances will the identity of an evaluator of a specific proposal be made available to anyone without the evaluator s written consent. The GFP will take all reasonable steps to avoid conflict of interest in the SECs. SEC members who have timely declared a conflict of interest with one or more of the proposals will be replaced. When a conflict of interest is declared at a very late stage, ad hoc measures will be taken to avoid bias in the results of the meeting of the SECs. 9. Decision Making by the Group of Funding Parties The members of the GFP will take the final decision regarding the proposals on a consensus basis, based on the recommendations of the Scientific Evaluation Committees. For the purposes of final selection, a meeting of the GFP will be convened. In preparation for said meeting, the ranking list prepared by the individual SECs will be presented to the Funding Parties, which will check the eligibility of requested funds and return an estimated national budget for each project based on their own national regulations. The GFP will create two lists of projects considered for funding: one shortlist of projects to be funded according to the committed budget of the Funding Parties and a reserve list of those projects which cannot be funded by one or more Funding Parties as a result of their committed budget having been exhausted. A core criterion for the first short list will be that at least one project per Funding Party will be funded, assuming that this project meets a threshold of 66% of the maximum evaluation score. The minutes of the meeting will be prepared by the Call Secretariat and adopted by the GFP within 2 weeks. When adopted and signed by all Funding Parties, the minutes are binding for the members of the GFP, adoption by each serving as confirmation of its funding commitment. With respect to the reserve list, several options will be considered by the Funding Parties: A Funding Party might decide to increase its committed budget in order to allow for projects from the reserve list to be funded normally. Provided the minimum eligibility criteria are still met in a given proposal (see section 2), a 14

15 consortium might decide to re-distribute the work among the funded project partners by taking over the activities of a project partner whose funding organisation run out of funds. This option could only be considered if the workload to be redistributed is less than 25% of the total project workload. The non-funded partner is not obliged to leave the consortium. Provided the minimum eligibility criteria for funded beneficiaries in a given project consortium are still met (see section 2), additional partners might be invited to participate at their own expense. In all cases the project consortium must still meet the requirements as specified in Section 2. These options will be explored by the respective Funding Parties within 4 weeks after the concluding meeting of the GFP. In this time span each Funding Party will inform the GFP as to its proposed course of action. According to the resulting funding options for the reserve list based on the information received from the individual Funding Parties, the GFP will take a final decision and approval by written procedure within 6 weeks after the concluding meeting of the GFP. The Call Secretariat will inform the applicants about the results of the evaluation process and funding recommendation. Successful applicants will be informed regarding the next steps for concluding the individual project grant agreements at a national level by their respective Funding Parties. 10. Project Contracts, Consortium Agreement and Project Monitoring Following the final decision taken by the GFP, the Call Secretariat will provide the necessary information to the Funding Parties in order to start national procedures necessary for project funding in their home countries. The project consortium partners selected for funding must sign a consortium agreement (CA) for cooperation addressing the issues given in Guidelines for applicants on consortium agreements. The research consortium is strongly encouraged to sign this CA before the official project start date, and in any case the CA has to be signed no later than six months after the official project start date. Upon request, this consortium agreement must be made available to the concerned funding organisations. Please note that for some agencies the signature of the CA is mandatory before the project starts. A template of a consortium agreement can be provided by the secretary upon request. Overall consistency between the consortium agreements will be ensured by the Members of GFP. The Group of Funding Parties will be responsible for the overall monitoring of the projects. The coordinators of the funded projects will be requested to send a consortium agreement to the call secretariat, latest XXXXXXX. If required, each participant should submit financial and scientific reports to their national funding organisations, according to national regulations. The progress and final results of each individual contract/letter of grant will be monitored by the respective national/regional funding organisations. 15

16 ANNEX 1: DETAILED FORMULATION OF RESEARCH TOPICS According to the process of topic identification and the collaboration between bi-regional projects and the documents for the SOM WGs and activities such as the recent Workshop on Ocean Energy which took place in Gran Canaria, Spain the December 2016, and the Funding Agencies Meeting in Mexico City, the April 2017, the first topics on subtopics in ocean energy selected are the following(*) : (*)Should there be recommendations to include a specific topic on renewable ocean energy,, it will be submitted for consideration by the GFA, TOPIC 1: Validate computational models in laboratory and field facilities Specific challenge: Why this topic is relevant The numerical models must be accurate to describe key parameters for marine energy systems. and which societal challenges does it address? The computational model should be calibrated and validated with data from measurements and/or experiments Improving human resources specialized in the area of computational modelling applied to ocean energies. Scope: Added value gained from The computational models will be usable for both regions, enhancing the accuracy of predicting energy production. EU-CELAC cooperation for both regions Preparation of specialized human resources in both regions through the exchange of knowledge on these topics and complementing the work done. Expected impact for both regions: Computational model development will provide a tool to decrease the costs of ocean energy exploitation by: anticipating the performance of the technologies, increasing the efficiency of the technologies, predicting and/or minimizing negative impacts on the environment, strengthening the capabilities of human resources optimizing solutions for the development of the technology. Type of action suggested: Research project, networking activities, mobility etc. Research project, networking activities, mobility etc. Research projects for data collection linked to research infrastructures (RI) for the calibration and validation of the models. Development of a jointly-shared repository of the computational model developments for use by members within the collaboration. 16

17 TOPIC 2: Material development and/or evaluation for equipment operating in an aggressive saline environment. Specific challenge: Development/testing of materials to improve economic viability of marine Why this topic is relevant devices. and which societal challenges does it address? Abrasion. Biocorrosion / biofouling protection. Durability in aggressive marine environments robustness in extreme conditions linked to ocean technologies. Human resources for the development of materials. Scope: Added value gained from EU-CELAC cooperation for both regions Expected impact for both regions: Type of action suggested: Research project, networking activities, mobility etc. The development of know-how regarding to existing and new ocean device materials applied to the wide range of technologies and sea conditions in both regions. Identification and/or development of suitable materials for marine energy devices. Uses of more adequate high-quality materials for devices Research project, networking activities, mobility etc. Research and pilot projects for developing/testing new materials. Collaboration of academia and industry in the identification, development and production of high-quality, low cost materials TOPIC 3: Development of standard environmental impact evaluation methodologies. Specific challenge: The homologation of environmental methodologies and techniques must consider Why this topic is relevant and which societal challenges does it address? the differences within the countries of two regions. While the key points for environment evaluation are not necessarily common to all locations, generating these methodologies will ensure the minimization of the negative impacts of ocean energy exploitation and the selection/evaluation and data development for life cycle analysis (LCA) Scope: Added value gained from The conservation and maintenance of environmental conditions and ecosystem services EU-CELAC cooperation for both regions Ocean energy systems will be introduced through a multidisciplinary and holistic approach. Expected impact for both Conservation of natural environments regions: Better integration of the ocean energy systems into the marine environments. Type of action suggested: Research project, networking activities, mobility etc. Multidisciplinary work, research, field work and monitoring for the evaluation of potential impacts in the marine environment with close collaboration with activities in large research infrastructures (RI). 17

18 TOPIC 4: Offshore and coastal multipurpose devices and multipurpose use. (co-location, cogeneration). Specific challenge: The development of combined systems able to harness marine energy as well as Why this topic is relevant perform another function, such as coastal protection and marine aquaculture, in and which societal challenges does it address? costs, enhance the efficiency of the devices and produce energy at competitive deep and coastal waters is the road that seems most viable to reduce production prices. Uncertainties remain regarding the physical and technical features of the multipurpose systems such as interconnection, operative hours, synchronization between components, effects on the marine area, etc. Experimental modelling is needed to better understand such devices prior to placing any in real sea conditions. Scope: Added value gained from EU-CELAC cooperation for both regions Expected impact for both regions: Type of action suggested: Research project, networking activities, mobility etc. As an examples of those combined system: - Hybrid "wave-wind" or "wave-current" devices - Utilizing wave or tidal energy converter for water desalination - Energetic and non-energetic combined exploitation on marine sites. Preserve the marine environment and facilitate the development of its potential The multipurpose systems developed, tested, characterized and optimized can be implemented in both regions. They are envisaged as one of the most promising alternatives of low cost energy generation and synergies with other nonenergetic utilization of the marine resources. Research project, networking activities, mobility etc. Development of experimental models and prototypes capable of representing offshore conditions. Testing multipurpose devices focusing on the synchronization of components and strategies for dealing with hazards. 18

19 TOPIC 5: R&D focus on testing of systems, subsystems and components of marine renewable energy prototypes. Specific challenge: The development of really innovative concepts to increase economic viability. Why this topic is relevant The testing of these systems, subsystems and components individually will be and which societal challenges does it address? innovative components in multiple prototypes would reduce followed by implementation in a full-scale prototype (rephrase). Integration of costs. - Applying feasible control systems to increase the efficiency of the devices - numerical analyses and near-full scale testing of the array of wave or current energy converters - PTOS - Electricity/Energy storage systems to stabilize the power production - Innovative foundation structures for the current turbines to be installed in specific sites. Scope: Added value gained from EU-CELAC cooperation for both regions The innovative devices should provide better efficiencies, the consolidation of the technologies and technology transfer. Exchange of human resources could lead to the creation of complementary concepts resulting from the integrated needs of both regions. Expected impact for both regions: Type of action suggested: Research project, networking activities, mobility etc. Reduction of costs for the development of prototypes, Technology exchange Open new markets for developers Research project, networking activities, mobility etc. Testing/validation/demonstration of innovative prototypes in real environment. Improvement of testing capabilities and the development of prototypes in connection with research infrastructure. 19

20 TOPIC 6: Data collection/evaluation of resources Specific challenge: Data collection is vitally important for the estimation and assessment of resources. However the availability of data, its measurement or its collection is Why this topic is relevant and which societal challenges does it address? development/design. Without adequate data collection resource evaluation will non-existent, scarce or its quality does not fulfil the needs of the technological be faulty and the design of technologies will not be optimum. Scope: Added value gained from EU-CELAC cooperation for both regions Expected impact for both regions: Type of action suggested: Research project, networking activities, mobility etc. Better understanding of processes affecting the development of technologies will be reached. Moreover, these technologies will be optimized for the particular conditions in which they will be placed. Consequently, better performance can be expected as well as the adaptability of the devices to a different and/or particular working conditions. The data collection and resource evaluation will produce information that is also useful for other purposes (e.g. environment conservation, monitoring of resources, sustainability). For both regions this offers generation of knowledge highly valuable for both regions in scientific, environmental and technology development; monitoring and determination of specific sites with the potential for the implementation of strategies focused on the harnessing of ocean energy; assessment of the impact of technologies through the comparison between a non-intrusive scenario and a modified one. Research project, networking activities, mobility etc. Research projects and networking activities should be conducted with focus on the recompilation of already existing data or previous evaluation of resources (state of the art), measurement and data collection of already known sites with the potential for the implementation of technologies for ocean energy exploitation, resource evaluation (local and regional scale) considering the temporal variations of the resources. The networking activities should enhance the capacity for the data collection and the techniques for analysis/evaluation of the resources. Research projects should be developed for specific data collection, with clear objectives and methodologies. The research projects can also serve as a starting point for the development of networking activities. 20

21 It is highly recommended to include any of those cross-cutting aspects Specific challenge: Why this topic is relevant and which societal challenges does it address? Cross-cutting aspects related to the call Harmonization of best-practices and processes. Socio-ecological issues Site selection. Non-technological barriers Scope: Added value gained from EU-CELAC cooperation for both regions Expected impact for both regions: Type of action suggested: Research project, networking activities, mobility etc. Added value gained from EU-CELAC cooperation for both regions Evaluation and enhancement of the social, economic and environmental impact in both regions of the technical developments in the projects Increase social acceptance of marine technologies in both regions. Enhance technical, social and economic exchange between both regions Reduction in negative effects in both social and environmental aspects Better acceptance of the technology developed Development of common, harmonise future market for marine technology and services. Establishing the bases for potential common standards for data and process definition in both regions, and best-practices for future system and subsystems certification. Technological exchange regarding the performance of marine devices in real conditions, Research project, networking activities, mobility etc. It is encourage and recommended to consider at least any of those cross-cutting topics into the project to enhance the exchange of information and to provide a channel for communication in order to improve the project impact. These horizontal topics are applied to four technologies (A:all) of interest ocean energy: - Tidal and current(tc) - Wave(W) - Salinity gradients (S) - Thermal gradients (T) The following table indicates a proposed level of knowledge/development for each topic that might be supported: Low (2-4) Medium (5-6) High (7-8) Computational models S, T, TW, MC Materials S,T, TC, W Standard env. impact S,T, TC, W Multipurpose devices S,T, TC, W R&D and testing of systems, S,T TC W subsystems and components Site selection S,T TC, W Table with topics related to infrastructure. Topic PLOCAN INH Uruguay Computational models 1 21