SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME

Contract No. ERAC-CT2005-016165

ERA-NET To foster prevention and best response to Accidental Marine Pollution

COORDINATION ACTION

Deliverable 2.1.1

Report on existing complementarities and gaps among national programmes

Due date: December 2006 Actual submission date: January 2006

Start of the project: April 2005 Duration: 4 years Organisation name of lead contractor for this deliverable: Estonian Science Foundation (EstSF), Estonia

Project co-funded by the European Commission within the Sixth Framework Programme (2002-2006) Dissemination level

PU Public XX PP Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services) RE Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services) CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services)

������

2

CONTENTS Summary 1. Introduction …………………………………………………………………….. 4 2. Methodology ………………………………………………………………...…. 4 2.1. Classification of project themes ………………………………………… 5 2.2. Statistical analysis of trans-national programmes ……………………. 6 2.3. Preferences for clustering the programmes …………………………… 6 3. Research areas of accidental marine pollution in partner countries 7 3.1. Inventory of research areas ……………………………………..……... 7 3.2. Prospective view on the AMP research in partner countries ……….. 10 4. National priorities …………………………………………………………… 13 5. Regional priorities …………………………………………………………… 13 6. Institutional & personal potential (partners involved) ……………... 15 7. Identified gaps ……………………………………………………………….... 15 8. Proposed themes for the Pilot Call …………………………………….... 16 8.1. Proposed follow up procedures ……………………………………….. 17 Appendixes Appendix A ………………………………………………..…..………………….… 18 Appendix B ……………………………………………………………………….… 21

3

Summary The report presents the conclusions of the prospective analysis of the trans-national programmes based on the background material produced within the different tasks of AMPERA project. The common approach to analysis is described as well as the sources of information used. The main data source for the analysis is the output of AMPERA task 1.1 “National programmes content.” Using different methods an overview of the most utilized research topics has been detected in accidental marine pollution (AMP) field as well as the prospective view on it. The last one describes the complementary themes, declared and most evident national priorities in R&D (incl. AMP field) and also some regional priorities given to the AMP research. Most evident gaps in the accidental marine pollution knowledge are identified either. As the pragmatic output of the current report, the proposed themes for the Pilot Call are drafted. The proposal is based on the most common areas of research at partner countries on complementary basis over viewed by three sections: basic research, applied research and institutional design (social research). As a result, three themes were outlined. More detailed description of the selected themes has not been the aim of the current report.

4

1. Introduction One of the aims of AMPERA is to formulate and implement a series of strategic activities aimed at identifying synergies and complementarities that may be the key for sustainable co-operation among partners in the field of accidental marine pollution research. Based on the complete inventory of existing national programmes, running projects and respective RTD priorities in the field in EU and other selected countries, as well as on the information on leading research groups and skills available, obtained within the project (Deliverable 1.1.1 and output of tasks 1.2 and 1.3 activities) the analysis of the complementarities between the national programmes and the existing gaps of knowledge was carried out. The potential of future co-operation and exchange has been assessed by examining systematically the priorities and conditions for joint strategic programmes. Proposals for future trans-national and interdisciplinary co-operation aimed at avoidance of redundancy and filling in research gaps will be formulated. A suite of potential specific clusters (regional/thematic clusters) will be identified either. 2. Methodology Overall methodology of the prospective analysis of transnational programs has been built up considering the following materials. 1. Approach described and discussed by the partners at earlier working stages

(Strategy Meeting in Tallinn, 13 July 2006, see appendix A). 2. Fulfilled questionnaires of nine organizations from eight countries on R&D

national programs content related to accidental marine pollution (AMP). 3. Report on the inventory of the programs conducted on AMP (deliverable 1.1.1),

prepared by IFREMER. 4. IFREMER’s draft Excel-table on comparison of AMP research programs. 5. Report on RTD Actors Questionnaire output (deliverable 1.2.2), prepared by

DEFRA. 6. Complementary information obtained from web sites on AMP matters. A main focus at this stage of analysis has been turned to the detecting the complementary themes. Additional information sources are: 1. A database on leading research groups in Europe (under preparation by RCN,

Norway). 2. Additional information from third countries of major interest (deliverable 1.1.1,

IFREMER). 3. Additional information derived from AMP web sites.

5

The analysis procedure has been executed through the following exercises: 1. A comprehensive thematic classification of R&D projects initiated by national

programs was elaborated with the aim of reflecting the prospective trends of applied research towards the multi- and inter-disciplinary approaches of the scientific work.

2. The comparison of the differences in thematic specialization between the AMPERA partners.

3. Statistical analysis of the national programs and projects listed and described in the questionnaire replies.

4. Finding the complementary themes best covered by national competence. Comparing the research priorities between the partner countries.

2.1. Classification of project themes Classification of programs and their complementarities could be done on different basis: Applied research with fundamentals • Detecting and monitoring technologies:

elaboration and testing of appropriate methods; design, construction and implementation of necessary facilities

• Impact studies: chemical - decomposition, chemical reactions;

physical - migration, evaporation, coagulation, sedimentation, accumulation etc.; ecological - influence to the biota (fish population incl.);

health - contaminants’ impact on health (water, aerosols, seafood); economic - economic influence on the business factors (fisheries and fish processing incl.), the cost of monitoring, institutional preparedness, remediation and compensation;

naval transport and logistics - pollution risk assessment; • Prevention methods and technologies: approach and methods, treatment and utilization of wastes; • Elaboration of prevention facilities (applied chemistry, physics and biology),

engineering (shipbuilding, technical solutions); • Institutional system of prevention: L egal environment - the science of law, social institutions - applied sociology, public attitudes - socio-psychology; • Environment protection: environment policy, international treaties.

6

Administrative aspects Organizing the countermeasures to AMP and designing of the institutional response measures require another section of applied research which could be classified as follows: • prevention: risk analysis, observation and monitoring networks, Sea protection

and navigation treaties, preparedness of national and international collaboration on emergency cases, investment into necessary know-how;

• managing the spills: detection and assessment of spills, estimation of damage, control over the spill, organization of cooperation;

• liquidation and/or compensation of damage: collecting, utilization or neutralization of pollutants, rehabilitation of sea ecosystems, mechanisms of economic compensation of damage on the business factors;

• international collaboration: navigation regulations, shipbuilding standards and control over them, protection of sensitive regions.

2.2. Statistical analysis of trans-national programmes This was accomplished from three independent aspects: 1. By the section used in the Programs inventory (Deliverable 1.1.1). 2. By the more comprehensive (detailed) thematic section described above. 3. By the national priorities declared in the questionnaires processed in the WP 1. Besides, cooperation on national as well as international level was considered and the regional priorities of AMP research were examined, too. 2.3. Preferences for clustering the programmes On the existing practice, the clear clusters have been modified around case studies of real oil spills (Prestige, Erika, Braer, Sea Empress, Bravo oil platform). Due to their pragmatism, all these studies have a comprehensive interdisciplinary character. A different basis should be chosen for clustering the themes. Evidently, there are several options. Clustering principles could be based on:

• Geographical characteristic (sea basins), • Class of polluting staff (oil, chemical products, nuclides), • Impact analysis (by different aspects), • Elaboration the countermeasures (by specific approaches), • Response preparedness preparation (socio-psychological, socio.economic,

institutional and administrative aspects), • Ambition to fulfill the research gap, • Aim of completing the incomplete chain of complementary studies on certain

theme.

7

3. Research areas of accidental marine pollution in partner countries 3.1. Inventory of research areas The inventory of research on AMP themes compiled on the basis of questionnaires on the trans-national programs1, gave a comprehensive picture of the AMP research themes at the partner countries (see Table 1). Conclusions: The main conclusions derived from the initial inventory on national AMP R&D2 were the following: 1. The overwhelming number of AMP research is dedicated to the learning of

behavior and impact of “oil pollutants.” All the partners in AMPERA Project3 practice it. Only the United Kingdom and France report developing R&D on chemical products, too. The R&D conducted on other pollutants, mainly concerning the effects of nuclear radiation or waste for the UK, and biological pollution for France, Portugal and Belgium4. Only Estonia has not reported the special projects on chemical marine pollution survey.

2. The most developed class for Spain, Portugal and Norway is the class Detection and monitoring technologies (it is the only class developed by Portugal).

3. Spain favours significantly the class Technologies for shore protection and rehabilitation (+bioremediation) (14 projects compared with 24 projects in the class Detection and monitoring technologies).

4. France has a relative balance between the classes Detection and monitoring technologies, Technologies for combating marine spills (at sea, on shore), and Technologies for shore protection and rehabilitation (+bioremediation). The least developed class is the Waste management, but France still has seven projects in this class (Spain is the only other country to have a project in this class).

5. The United Kingdom does no presents R&D projects in the class Detection and monitoring technologies, and enhances more specifically the Technologies for combating marine spills (at sea, on shore). Belgium has not reported on Detection and monitoring technologies research as well.

6. Most of the projects developed in the field Impacts are in the class Environmental impact assessment (Belgium, France, Portugal, Norway, and

1 Deliverable D 1.1.1.: Inventory of the Public and Private Programmes conducted on technological and scientific aspects of accidental marine pollution, focused on the AMPERA area, and on the other leading countries. Sept., 2006. 42 pp.

2 Deliverable D 1.1.1., op cit.

3 Except Ireland and XUNTA (Spain), who have not responded to the questionnaires or who have reported having no specific AMP projects running.

4 Deliverable D 1.1.1., op cit.

8

Spain). The second most developed class is the class Impacts on fisheries & resources (all partners except Belgium, Estonia and Norway).

7. In the field Response preparedness, the class mainly considered by France, Norway, and Spain is the class Contingency planning (risks identification, response protocols, …). Actually, all the AMPERA partners finance contingency planning projects at a current stage.

8. France and Spain also significantly favour the class Pollutants characterization (physical-chemical, modelling).

9. Environmental data collection is an activity of common use everywhere as well as studies for pollutants’ characterization.

10. Besides UK and France, the research on technologies for shore protection and rehabilitation are ongoing in Estonia and Spain.

11. Globally the AMPERA partners have a relative balance among the three defined AMP fields (Pollution countermeasures, Impacts, and Response preparedness) except France and United Kingdom which mainly developed respectively Pollution countermeasures R&D and Response preparedness R&D (around 50% of the funded projects) during the studied period (2000-2005).

From the financial point of view, Belgium deals much with “impact”, but not with the “response preparedness”. Estonia and France, contrary, pay more attention on the “response preparedness”. Portugal, Spain and Norway pay almost an equal attention on the “pollution”, “impact” and “response preparedness” research.

9

Inventory of AMP research programs and projects* Table 1

Research aspect/Country Total projects Belgium Estonia France Ireland Portugal Spain Galicia UK Norway

Type of pollutant

oil 367 8 4 186 20 117 24 8

chemical products 150 8 0 87 15 29 7 4

other 145 11 0 71 12 29 18 4

Pollution Countermeasures

Detection and monitoring technologies 72 0 2 30 12 26 0 2

Technologies for combatting marine spills 50 0 0 38 0 7 5 0

Technologies for shore protection and rehabilitation 70 0 1 51 0 15 3 0

Waste management 8 0 0 7 0 1 0 0

Developed Research

Impact of clean-up 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

Human health impact 4 0 0 3 0 1 0 0

Impact on fisheries & resources 36 0 0 12 2 18 4 0

Socio-economic impacts 12 0 0 2 0 10 0 0

Environmental impact assessment 107 6 1 36 18 33 9 4

Impact on natural resources 3 2 0 0 0 0 1 0

Response Preparedness

Pollutants characterization 52 1 0 25 0 13 12 1

Enviromental specification (environmental data) 25 0 2 7 13 2 1

Resource mapping 5 1 0 2 2 0

Contingency planning 83 2 1 46 3 22 6 3

Exercises/scenario testing 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 1

Computer Modeling

* According to the classification used for IFREMER-CEDRE' inventory (D.1.1.1.).

** Disparity in the data should be considered: the duration of projects are not similar, some programs are not specific to AMP but include AMP projects,

some projects cover several fields in AMP.

10

3.2. Prospective view on the AMP research in partner countries Deciding on the common themes of national research programs on the prospective view gives a picture in different details. Screening of AMP research projects classifying them on more comprehensive basis considering possibly more aspects of know-how required for prevention, decision making, action planning on AMP cases, ecological rehabilitation and compensation of economic losses, is followed at the Table 2. Conclusions: Deciding on these two screening views of the trans-national programs, and comparing the number of projects dealing with certain issues related to specific AMP research and the number of partners considering these issues “credible,” a number of complementary themes could be detected (see Table 3). 1. A lot of attention is dedicated to the impact studies, whereby almost all aspects

are considered. Marine pollutants’ impact on human health seems less studied than other consequences of pollution. The impact on the biota is a most exploited theme. All the partners finance the projects dedicated to this kind of influence. So called classical studies to produce the applied knowledge for AMP emergencies have constantly been on the agenda of R&D in all EU.

2. All AMPERA partners are engaged in the methodological studies (basic research) of detecting and monitoring technologies.

3. Elaboration of prevention methods and technologies has also been currently supported by national R&D funding bodies.

4. Know-how for prevention measures has been of permanent concern. Statistically, six partners of eight have constantly fostered the studies for that purpose. The field of knowledge for prevention measures includes the development of integrated databases, information systems, instructions and manuals for emergency cases, elaboration of prevention facilities - applying for practical output of science as well as making engineering efforts to find new and more effective means to fight with that disaster. A number of research projects prepare the proposals for institutional development, incl. developing the observation and monitoring networks for AMP.

5. Elaboration of methods for risk analysis and practical case studies are represented with a number of projects.

6. Practice of accidents has caused a constant attention to the detecting and monitoring technologies, detection and assessment of spills and elaboration of spill control techniques by all countries involved in AMPERA.

7. Among widely exploited themes some new methods for treatment the wastes and overall handling of pollutants could be named, too.

11

AMP research themes reported* Table 2

Issues Belgium Estonia France Portugal Spain United Kingdom Norway EU ** Total

Scientific aspect Detecting and monitoring technologies

methodologies 1 2 17 10 18 5 2 7 62 engineering 9 1 3 1 6 20

Impact studies: chemical 1 14 3 11 2 1 32

ecological 1 1 31 5 32 11 1 5 87 physical 1 8 6 2 1 1 19

economic 1 2 1 7 1 2 14 health 4 1 5 1 11

naval transportation and logistics 2 1 2 5

Prevention methods and technologies methodology 1 21 5 25 6 2 2 62

treatment and utilization of wastes 16 4 4 4 28

Elaboration of prevention facilities: applied natural sciences 1 10 3 16 2 1 33

engineering 21 4 1 6 32

Institutional system of prevention legal environment 1 1

social institution 2 13 23 3 1 4 46 public attitudes 3 3

Environment protection environmental policy 1 3 4 international treaties 1 3 4

Administering aspect Prevention

risk analysis 1 4 2 5 1 2 2 17 observation and monitoring networks 1 1 14 5 17 1 4 43 sea protection and navigation treaties 1 1 2

int.preparedness on emergencies 1 3 4 know-how investment policy 1 2 23 3 5 2 2 5 43

Managing the spills detection and assessment of spills 1 9 2 9 1 4 26

estimation of damage 5 2 3 1 2 13 control over the spills 1 11 1 4 1 3 21

organization of cooperation 4 2 1 1 8

Liquidation/compensation of damage handling the pollutants 8 2 4 10 24

rehabilitation of sea ecosystems 8 3 2 1 14 economic facilities of compensation 5 1 2 8

International collaboration navigation regulations 2 2

shipbuilding standards and control 1 1 protection of sensitive regions 0

Total: 6 15 261 44 213 50 19 81 689

* Screened by keywords; e.g., crosschecking possible. Number in cells is not adequately reflecting the number of projects. Besides, several partners have reported recently concluded research projects in detail, too. ** Data on EU projects given according to the section 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 of Deliverable D 1.1.1.

12

Complementary themes Table 3

No of projects Thematic issues Partners involved 0 International collaboration, protection of sensitive regions 0 1 International collaboration, shipbuilding standards and control* 0 1 Institutional system of prevention, legal environment 1 2 International collaboration, navigation regulations* 0 2 Prevention, sea protection and navigation treaties 1 3 Institutional system of prevention, public attitudes 1 4 Environment protection, environmental policy 2 4 Prevention, int.preparedness on emergencies* 1 4 Environment protection, international treaties 2 5 Impact studies, naval transportation and logistics 2 8 Managing the spills, organisation of cooperation 4 8 Liquidation/compensation of damage, economic facilities of compensation 2 11 Impact studies, health 4 13 Managing the spills, estimation of damage 4 14 Impact studies, economic 5 14 Liquidation/compensation of damage, rehabilitation of sea ecosystems 3 17 Prevention, risk analysis 6 19 Impact studies, physical 5 20 Detecting and monitoring technologies, engineering* 4 21 Managing the spills, control over the spills 5 24 Liquidation/compensation of damage, handling the pollutants* 3 26 Managing the spills, detection and assessment of spills 5 28 Prevention methods and technologies, treatment and utilization of wastes 3 32 Impact studies. chemical 6 32 Elaboration of prevention facilities, engineering 3 33 Elaboration of prevention facilities, applied natural sciences 5 43 Prevention, know-how investment policy 6 43 Prevention, observation and monitoring networks 6 46 Social institution, Institutional system of prevention 5 62 Prevention methods and technologies, methodology 6 62 Detecting and monitoring technologies, methodologies 7 87 Impact studies, ecological 7

* Number of projects run by Partner countries is remarkably less (or absent at all) without the EU Projects.

13

4. National priorities The questionnaire processed for collecting information about the national priorities of the whole R&D (AMP incl.). Objectives listed at the program introduction6 open the sense of declared priorities. Abstracting this part from the questionnaires will give a certain understanding on national priorities in the field of AMP. On the basis of that information the most common priorities of all partner countries could be highlighted (see Table 4). The list of top priorities (common to most partner countries) is the next: 1. Impact of pollutants on marine environment 2. Learning ecosystem functioning 3. Pollution case studies 4. Preparedness for AMP 5. Methodologies for measuring organic pollutants 6. Tracking and monitoring the spills 7. Detecting and testing the dispersants 8. Pollutants' behavior at the sea environment Some more trans-nationally developed directions concerning AMP have become evident: 1. Risk analysis of human activities at sea 2. Technical intervention, protection and rehabilitation 3. Treatment and utilization of wastes 4. Shipwreck management 5. Know-how investments 6. Action plans for clean up AMP in harbors 7. Pollutant spills 5. Regional priorities Only few partners have determined regional priorities of their AMP research. Belgium has clearly oriented on the research of related matters on North Sea. Antarctica is another focus area for Belgium’s marine sciences. Estonia has focussed its comparatively limited resources to the Gulf of Finland, Baltic Sea. Besides its coastal seas, Norway names also Arctic Sea as a specific research area. Spain is concentrating also at his costal seas. Special concern is expressed with reference to the Galician and Cantabrian Coast.

6 In several cases, the programme description does not include this information in the questionnaire reply.

14

R&D priorities, particularly in the field of AMP* Table 4 Belgium Estonia France United Kingdom Portugal Spain Norway total

Learning ecosystem functioning 1 1 1 1 4

Impact of human activities on ecosystem 1 1 2

Impact of pollutants on marine environment 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 Impact of treatment technoligies on the marine ecosystem 1 1

Pollutants' behaviour at the sea environment 1 1 1 1 4

Methodologies for measuring organic pollutants 1 1 1 1 4

Tracking and monitoring the spills 1 1 1 1 4 Detecting and testing the dispersants 1 1 1 1 4

Risk and socio-economic impact of oil pollution 1 1 2

Risk analysis of human activities at sea 1 1 1 3

Pollution risk assessment 1 1 2

Technical intervention, protection and rehabilitation 1 1 1 3 Development of technologies for reduction the impact 1 1 2

Treatment and utilization of wastes 1 1 1 3

biodegradation 1 1 2

photochemical degradation 1 1

Safety and sustainability of ships 1 1

Pollution case studies 1 1 1 1 1 5 Shipwreck management 1 1 1 3

Oil drilling hazards 1 1

Integrated database for management of AMP 1 1 2

Know-how investments 1 1 1 3 Observation and monitoring networks 1 1 2

Forecasting models 1 1

Preparedness for AMP 1 1 1 1 4 Action plan for clean up AMP in harbors 1 1 1 3 Action plan for coastal area management 1 1 2

Formulating emergency response 1 1

Conservation measures 1 1

Institutional system development 1 1

Chemical pollutants 1 1 2

Radioactive substances 1 1

Pollutant spills 1 1 1 3

Fisheries 1 1

* dark gray background - most common to the partners in AMPERA. light gray background - common to the partners in AMPERA.

15

6. Institutional & personal potential (partners involved) A special section in the questionnaire gives some hints on this matter, too. As a rule, public research institutes and national universities are playing the leading role in AMP research. A private sector does a remarkable portion of study in Belgium, Estonia, France, United Kingdom and Norway. France, United Kingdom and Portugal work together with certain non-governmental organisations. France is the only one who reports about the involvement of local authorities. Only Estonia, France and Portugal have mentioned involvement of foreign research institutes (universities) in their national AMP projects. The inventory of national programs (D.1.1.1) concludes the following: “All the AMPERA partner programmes offer the possibility of international co-operation but with more or less facilities. In general, the foreign partner is expected to find national funding for its participation. Spain has funded projects including international co-operation (with Denmark, France, Italy, Netherlands, United Kingdom, and the United States), Portugal (with United Kingdom, and the United States), and Estonia (with France, Netherlands, and Sweden). This co-operation is not restricted to the European Union (EU). More generally, the European programmes / projects are a basis for International Co-operation.” 7. Identified gaps: On the basis of information gathered so far, several obvious gaps in AMP knowledge development become evident. There are no projects reported or only few named on the following themes: 1. Ecological impact of clean-up 2. Safety and sustainability of ships 3. Forecasting models (emergency and risk) 4. International preparedness on emergencies 5. Development of international treaties and national responsibility 6. Protecting of sensitive regions 7. Economic facilities of compensation 8. Shaping the public attitudes United Kingdom has solely practised some research on the radionuclides at the sea and on the effect of radiation on marine ecosystems. Detecting the gaps will deserve a special attention in the next phase of the prospective analysis.

16

8. Proposed themes for the Pilot Call As a conclusion of the prospective analysis of national programmes on AMP the most common areas of research at partner countries on complementary basis are as next. Basic research: 1. Pollutants’ migration at the marine environment (vertical as well as horizontal

drift of contaminants, the metabolism in a marine biota) and control over it. 2. Pollutants impact on a biota.7 3. “Pollutants’ chemistry”: detecting and testing, chemical behavior of pollutants,

classification of pollutants. Applied research: 4. Commercial and non-commercial economic impact assessment. 5. Development of simulation models for reducing the damage and prevention of

pollution. 6. Elaboration and installment of integrated information systems for

assistance in decision making on marine pollution issues. 7. New cleaning methods (bio degradation, photochemical and chemical methods

etc.). 8. Technologies for shore protection and rehabilitation. 9. Elaboration of prevention methods: biological, chemical, technical,

engineering. Institutional design (social research): 10. Contingency planning methodologies and planning in practice. 11. Managing the spills, control over the spills. 12. Monitoring of sensitive areas, conservation measures development. Project partners have been consulted on some characteristic features of the themes which should be considered while announcing the Pilot Call: • Progress in successful AMP combat requires integrated multidisciplinary

approach. Therefore, these characteristics will be followed. • Not purely basic nor applied research will be specially favored: both characters

are feasible. • A project theme should not be too comprehensive. • No engineering profile! • Project duration – maximum two years. • Number of partners involved – at least three partners involved per proposal. • Main idea of the call - to develop networking between the partners and third

counterparts. • Case studies allowed. • Chemical pollution aspects involved (not only oil spill research!).

7 Bold themes are complementary for most partner countries, numerous projects dedicated to the theme.

17

As a result of the analysis output, the negotiations on the Second Strategy Meeting in Tallinn (October 2006; Appendix B) and Executive Committee Meeting in Santiago de Compostela (November 2006), three themes were drafted and proposed: 1. Risk assessment studies, incl.: • methodologies, integrating different aspects of risk, • biomarkers, ecosystem functioning, • sensitive coastal areas. 2. Clean-up principles and approaches, incl.: • biodegradation, photochemical and chemical methods, etc., • their impact to the ecosystem, • waste disposal, • ecosystem rehabilitation, • shore protection. 3. Instruments & technologies for detection and forecasting AMP, incl.: • detection methodologies and methods, • forecasting models, • networking models. More detailed description of the selected themes has not been the aim of the current report. 8.1. Proposed follow up procedures: To be better prepared for the joint calls the next issues have to be clarified also during the forthcoming duration of AMPERA projects: • The differences in skills (scientific competence) and research potential available

at AMPERA partner countries. Their capability for complementary research projects or fulfilling the urgent gaps in R&D (based mainly on the additional information made available with the outputs of other tasks).

• The administrative and legal factors influencing on trans-national cooperation between partner countries, provided (elaborated) by the output of tasks 2.2 (Barriers that hinder trans-national co-operation), 2.3 (Improving inter-regional co-operation) and 2.4 (Joint Programme management).

18

Appendix A

Discussion agenda. 1st Strategy Meeting. Tallinn, 13 July 2006. AMPERA Task 2.1. (WP2) – EstSF

Working schedule (deadlines) June 30th 2006 - elaboration of the methodical approach July 13th - Strategy Meeting in Tallinn, MSI June-August 2006 - strategic study on complementarities (and gaps) among national programmes. Draft clustering of R&D. 8th Sept. 2006 - results of the study in draft version for discussion on the workshop (Brussels, 11-13 Sep 2006) Oct 2006 - discussion paper (white paper) on complementarities among national programmes with identification of R&D clusters (D.2.1.1.) Oct 2006 - workshop representing the white paper - Tallinn (26th or 27th of Oct 2006?) Oct 2006 - March 2007 - complementing the white paper 1. Methodology (approach) for proceeding task 2.1 (and the WP2 as a whole?) Methodical “tiles” of the approach: � Thematic systemizing the R&D projects initiated by national programmes

(pattern for analysis!). - The classification of R&D themes should be defined in beforehand (see items

2, 3 and 4 in the current Position Paper!). � The differences in thematic specialization between the AMPERA partners. � The differences in skills (scientific competence) available by AMPERA partner

countries and their capability for complementary research projects or fulfilling the urgent gaps in R&D (information coming from the output of task 1.3 and task 1.2?)

� The administrative and legal factors influencing on trans-national cooperation in every partner country separately provided (elaborated) by the output of task 2.2, task 2.3 and task 2.4?)

The output of task 2.1 will include: � The overview of running (just started or recently finished!) R&D activities by

AMPERA partner countries in respect to the full range of the AMP themes: on regional basis separately as well as the whole partnership together (existing complementarities and gaps).

� Restructuring the R&D thematic clusters according to the findings of the analysis (the output of task 2.1!), if necessary.

� The R&D trans-national cooperation potential for the future (starting from April 2007!): perspectives for cooperation by integrating the complementary studies utilizing the national scientific capabilities for the other partners as well.

19

Proposals for trans-national and interdisciplinary cooperation as follow up: Potential thematic clusters will be defined with the aim of: 1. Filling in the detected gaps in existing R&D activities, 2. Utilization of the discovered complementarities in AMP research, 3. Implementing the best practice. 2. How shall we systemize the R&D programs detected? Shall we keep the CEDRE-IFREMER’s approach used at the task 1.1? Programs have been classified into four sections:

• Pollution countermeasures

• Impacts

• Response preparedness

• Studies characterization But their complementarities could be done on different bases...

• Applied approaches • Administering aspect

3. Can we determine any preferences for clustering the programs? How general or detailed the clustering classification should be? 4. Shall we limit only with the systematization basis of the R&D programs at this stage of strategy discussion? Does anything else matters if analyse “complementarities between the national programmes and the existing gaps of knowledge”, as said in the task objective? 5. How comprehensive view is necessary? � Shall we limit with the most common matters (oil, chemicals, other)? � Shall we classify the research objects in beforehand?

20

6. How wide area is taken into consideration geographically? � Does it make sense to classify the programmes by the geographical

characteristics? � Maybe this will be one approach for clustering: programmes on North Sea, Irish

Sea, Baltic Sea, La Manche, Biscay, Mediterranean Sea, Arctic Ocean etc.? � Shall we limit with the information of AMPERA partner countries? � How important is to include the “outside” information (other EU coastal states,

USA etc.) into the pool of basic material? 7. For planning the future (calls): shall we determine some priorities in beforehand or leave it thoroughly on the results of the analysis? Theses on strategy at the AMPERA Contract’s DoW The WP2 has to answer the question: “What are the European scientific and technological needs that should be addressed? “

21

Appendix B

Discussion agenda. 2nd Strategy Meeting. Tallinn. 26 October 2006. AMPERA Task 2.1. (WP2) – EstSF 1. Should the Pilot Call of April 2007 exercise basic research or an applied research projects? There is no clear borderline between those two approaches for nowadays research. A practical purpose of outputs, multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity are building a combination of those two approaches as well. But still, in principle, the common trend of application should be determined by the theme. 2. How to achieve the acceptable policy orientation of funding the AMP research at partner countries? What should be common to the national priorities? Preliminary results of the analysis give a reference of the common interests in AMP field. 3. Elements of innovation in the AMP research. Innovation through the fulfilling the detected gaps in AMP research? Innovation through widening and deepening the knowledge on the behaviour and consequences of spills? Inspiring and initiating the unexampled approaches in engineering? ... 4. Drafting the initial versions for the theme(s) for the first joint (pilot) call. Most common areas of AMP research at partner countries are as next (on complementary basis). • Basic research

• Applied research

• Institutional design (social research 5. Shall we pay any attention to the regional determination of themes?