2nd Network Steering Committee Meeting
76 Portland Place, London, W1B 1DE
1st December 2009
Chair: Professor Marja Jylha
MINUTES
1 / WELCOME, ATTENDANCE AND APOLOGIES
Present:
Kenneth Abrahamsson (KA)
Claudine Attias-Donfut (CAD)
Uldis Berkis (UB)
Frank Bingen (FB)
Juliet Craig (JC)
Aurelia Curaj (ACJ)
Marja Jylha (MJ)
Claudia Gandin (CG)
Anu Nuutinen (AN)
Christina Bonora (CB)
Volker Köhn (VK)
Howard Bergman (HB)
Wolfgang Ballensienfen (WB) / Benny Leshem (BL)
Gabriel Prada (GP)
Alain Rozenkier (AR)
Emanuele Scafato (ES)
Michel Tuchman (MT)
Alan Walker (AW)
Kerstin Carsjo (KC)
Penka Naidenova (PN)
Apologies:
Irit Allon
Bojimir Davidov
Mihail Coculescu
Mikael Fogelholm / Anibal Gonzalez
Beatrix Grubeck-Loebenstein
Barbara Haberl
Genoveva Mihova
Iveta Ozolanta
Welcome
The chair welcomed the Network Steering Committee (NSC), new Associate Partners and Tina Bonora from OEAW. BL announced that Irit recently had a baby. AW said a congratulations card would be sent.
Coordinator: The University of Sheffield, Sociological Studies, Elmfield Building, Northumberland Road, Sheffield S10 2TU, UK
www.era-age.group.shef.ac.uk
E-mail: Tel: +44 114 222 6458 Fax: +44 114 222 6492
2 / REVIEW OF THE MINUTES OF THE LAST NSCa) The minutes of the last NSC meeting were approved.
b) AW provided an update on the progress of the FUTURAGE project. MJ asked AW to clarify the role of scientists in FUTURAGE. AW stated that FUTURAGE is centred aro€und key scientific themes, but that scientists cannot just develop these ideas in isolation. Therefore the project is an iterative process to set up a dialogue between funders, research scientists and commissioners to provide a consensus document which pleases everyone.
c) BL asked how they, as ERA-AGE 2 partners, could contribute to FUTURAGE, AW said that they will be invited to engage in the FORUM meetings. The process is designed so that at key stages, partners and stakeholders will have the opportunity to examine and provide input on recommendations.
d) KA stated that he attended the FUTURAGE NSC to represent ERA-AGE 2, and that there is an opportunity for ERA-AGE 2 input to be presented at the FUTURAGE NSC, but that feedback needs to be focused. He noted that FUTURAGE is a big investment and that there are other contacts outside Europe who should be engaged with, in Tokyo and the USA. He would like to see FUTURAGE as a global project and is happy that so much money has been invested. AW said that the Commission wants them to network globally. They need key people from the US, Japan etc to attend the Forum and to report their findings.
e) WB said that he could not find the FUTURAGE link on the website. He suggested that a link should be included. The CT confirmed that a website is being created and that the link will be shared when the site is live.
f) WB also mentioned that there has been no contact between German FUTURAGE partners and ERA-AGE 2 partners. The CT agreed to put them in touch.
g) KA asked if there was a potential to bring an Irish partner into the consortium. AW said that there is no equivalent body in Ireland but that the CT was developing connections. US charitable money has recently created an all Ireland initiative on ageing and the Director of the initiative has been in touch with AW to explore collaboration between post-doctoral programmes. The CT will follow this up as FLARE progresses. / CT
CT
3 / WELCOME TO TINA BONORA, OEAW.
a) The NSC welcomed Tina Bonora as the new representative of OEAW to ERA-AGE 2.
4 / WELCOME TO NEW ASSOCIATE PARTNERS
a) Representatives from four new Associate Partners were welcomed to ERA-AGE 2:
· Volker Köhn – Saxon State Ministry for Social Affairs
· Howard Bergman - Fonds de la recherche en santé du Québec and also representing, for this meeting, Anne Martin-Matthews and the Canadian Institute of Aging
· Wolfgang Ballensienfen - Projekttager des BMBF im DLR
b) Per his request, it was agreed that WB would be given the title of Observer to the project, rather than Associate Partner, but with no significant change to his role which would enable him to offer the NSC his experience and advice. The CT will reflect this on the website. WB also stated that BMBF will cover his expenses connected to his participation in ERA-Age 2
c) BL queried what rights and responsibilities Associate Partners and Observers had and AW confirmed that they were considered to be full and active members of the consortium with an equal voice in meetings and could participate in any aspects of the project they wished. To the point raised in the past on possibility of clash in voting of federal and regional representation BL noted that there are examples like that in other ERA-Nets (e.g. Spain and Basque region) and they have have equal status. The CT will check that they are no objections from the Commission to offering all Associate Partners and Observers from both regions and countries, equal voting rights. AW also confirmed that CT will cover expenses of participation of Saxony in all ERA-Age 2 functions.
d) AW said that the Commission is keen to extend the Partnership and that there is no limit on the number of Partners. All partners are requested to send contacts to the CT, or initiate a conversation with potential members themselves.
e) HB explained that funding was available in Canada for Canadian partners to participate in the project and that FRSQ had previously had full membership status in another ERA-NET without receiving funding from the EU. He asked why this was not possible for ERA-AGE 2. The CT will explore how both FRSQ and the Institute of Aging can gain full member status.
f) CAD asked whether it should be proposed that a Chinese province they have close connections with could be brought on board as an associate member. AW pointed out that as they have no relationship with FP7 funding they could be brought in as an observer and suggested they could be invited to a forum meeting in this context. He discussed the possibility of inviting a representative of the China National Committee on Ageing in Beijing.
g) CG asked what the criteria were for being as Associate Partner for ERA-AGE 2. She pointed out that if we engage with centres who do not have any EU connections we need to consider what we can offer them and how – perhaps they could be invited to attend a FORUM or participate in a research program. CG emphasised that this would be especially important for developing countries which do not have much history or infrastructure in research.
h) BL pointed out that as well as China there is also a trend to engage with Russia, India and Japan particularly. He suggested the consortium should hold a FORUM as an international event, to bring representatives from these countries together.
i) WB suggested that the CT put together a protocol for engaging with new partners that explains what ERA-AGE 2 is, and how they can join and what the criteria are. The CT will also review the budget to identifying funding to support the travel of Associate Partners.
j) VK confirmed how pleased he was to be an Associate Partner of ERA-AGE 2 and is interested to get involved in the project and gain Full Partner status as soon as possible. / CT
CT
All partners
CT
CT
5 / GRANT AGREEMENT UPDATE
a) JC informed the NSC that the money is now in Sheffield and will be distributed within forty five days. Partners were requested to submit bank details if they had not already.
b) JC will confirm funds individually. She said that travel costs will be an additional subsidy to the figures outlined in the GPFs/Grant Agreement.
c) WB asked if this meant that ERA-AGE 1 had finished. JC confirmed that questions were still being asked by the Commission and funds had not yet been released, but were expected soon.
d) KC queried what proportion of the budget would be distributed as pre-financing. JC confirmed this would be 67% / All Partners
6 / CO-ORDINATION TEAM STAFFING UPDATE
a) The CT currently consists of Juliet Craig and Melissa Nance. JC said that they are recruiting two more members of staff. They will be interviewing for a Research Manager this week to take over the daily running of the ERA-AGE project, and a Finance Administrator to manage and monitor budgets for the University of Sheffield. JC will remain overseeing the project, but is working primarily on FUTURAGE.
b) Andrew Cattermole is still managing the whole project budget and available for queries.
7 / PROJECT MARKETING
a) Website – updates, profiles, ERA-AGE databases.
i) Content will be updated over next the six weeks or so. The co-ordination team needs updated profiles (currently located here http://era-age.group.shef.ac.uk/content/14/partner-profiles) . Please send any updated versions to JC.
ii) WB said that FUTURAGE needs good cross linking between websites. He asked if Associate Partners have access to the internal part of the website. JC said yes, they will have access. He suggested that FLARE 1 and 2 should be split, so that it is clear they are two separate projects.
iii) CAJ asked if new research programmes have to send profiles. JC said detailed information about research programmes would be collected when the ERA-AGE 2 database is updated, but if partners would like to update their profile with research programmes they run they are welcome to provide updated information.
b) PR Proposal
i) This was briefly discussed at the last meeting in June and JC has provided a more detailed suggestion of how limited funds for PR should be directed, and asked for partners to provide information about PR companies they have good experience with (BL has already provided information of one).
ii) WB stressed the importance of being clear on who the audience for any PR is, and emphasised how ambitious what we were proposing is. He said a decision should be made whether the project is pitched at a European or National level.
iii) MJ said that the NSC needs to consider what the specific message is to the public, commissioners and researchers. The same message needs to be given in different ways, depending on who they are addressing.
iv) BL said that they need to be clear on what the project is about, and to agree on the content so that it is not contradictory.
v) AN suggested that the content needs to be prioritised. She asked if the websites would be translated into the appropriate language as this would have a bigger impact. It was agreed that each Partner should translate their documents and disseminate within their country once the translation had been agreed.
vi) PN said that they should be advised on what to translate, and when. AW confirmed that the CT will provide guidance on when specific documents need translating. In general, partners can undertake work for the project in their native languages, but any submissions to the CT (such as the National Consultations for FUTURAGE) should be in English.
vii) MJ observed that while scientists work in English, policy makers normally only read documents in local languages.
viii) BL asked CT that CSO-MOH will be involved in PR activities. JC answered that they will do that. / All partners
8 / FLARE 2
a) Preparatory structures – report on first sub-group meeting.
i) AW provided an overview of the FLARE programme for new members. FLARE is a post-doctoral programme, which is multidisciplinary and has a mobility element, which requires the FLARE fellow to spend six to twelve months in another country. The main elements of the application process consist of a call for applications, the applications are peer-reviewed and the success applications agreed at a commission panel.
ii) JC reported that the subgroup (Michel Tuchman, Aurelia Curaj and Alan Walker) had met the previous day, and reviewed the timetable for the project as well as key documentation, especially the document to collect information about funding bodies’ administrative requirements.
iii) WB asked if the financing would be the same as FLARE 1 and it was confirmed that each country will fund their own fellowships. HB asked what exactly was funded by each fellowship and AW confirmed it covered salary and (for the mobility period) travel and expenses.
iv) WB asked if the funding bodies for FLARE 2 have deadlines – such as annual budgets - as these need to be taken into account.
v) WB also asked how candidate should engage with the funding bodies for each country and suggested that the NSC should not answer questions, but refer them to each funding body. BL suggested each funding organisation should provide a clear eligibility list for their candidates, with summaries available on the FLARE website and information on country specific funding contacts to deal with candidates’ questions.
vi) UB explained that Latvia has experienced some problems as a receiving institution with other similar programmes that they have participated in. He asked if there were already existing agreements for the mobility period that could be used and how the receiving institutions were paid. KC said they had also had problems with one receiving institution not understanding what they had signed up to. AW said all countries have the same policy and they fund travel and subsistence, but they do not pay institutions. The CT agreed to make sure that hosting and visiting institutions have more information about what is expected of them and that no payment will be made.
vii) HB mentioned that they may be able to host Fellows in Montreal, although it would depend on available funds for travel and subsistence. KA suggested that a European FLARE fellow doing a mobility period in Canada could only spend 3 months there, instead of 6, in order to reduce costs. HB suggested that as living costs in Canada were comparable with Europe, the greatest additional cost would be the flights, which could be funded by the FRSQ and CIHR Institute of Aging. The CT will explore these options with FRSQ and the Institute of Aging.